# dafyomi

lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE MEALS OF SUKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> One is obligated to eat 14 meals 
          in the Sukah (one each day and one each night).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> There is no minimum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> One who did not eat the first 
          meal in the Sukah may make it up, even on the 
          night of Shemini Atzeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> There is no way to make up a 
          missed meal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION TO EAT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. Eliezer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One must dwell in the Sukah as one 
          resides at home, eating one meal in the day and 
          one at night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then what do the Chachamim hold?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even at home one may skip a meal if he 
          desires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then why is a person obligated to eat 
          even the first meal in the Sukah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is derived from the parallel to the 
          first night of Pesach, where eating is 
          obligatory.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Whence that eating on the first 
               night of Pesach is obligatory and not 
               optional?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk mandates eating Matzah 
               that night.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAKING UP A MEAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How could a person replace the first 
          meal in the Sukah the remaining meals of Sukos 
          are, themselves, obligatory (and one may not 
          eat in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer retracted his position 
          regarding the remaining days, thus allowing for 
          the replacement meal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does one replace a meal?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> With bread.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> That is nothing unique and there 
               is no way of identifying that as a 
               replacement!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He replaces it with eating 
               delicacies after a meal (as supported by 
               the Beraisa).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RULINGS BY R. ELIEZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (the guardian of King Agripas to R. 
          Eliezer):</font></b> May I follow my normal custom of 
          eating only one Seudah per day (assuming that 
          R. Eliezer still maintains that one is 
          obligated in two Seudos per day-Ritva).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Surely a person like yourself can 
          dedicate one appetizer to the honor of your 
          Creator!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Am I permitted to leave my Sukah (and 
          family) in one city to join my Sukah (and 
          family) in another?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, since I have ruled that leaving the 
          Sukah cancels the previous days of the Mitzvah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) VISITING ONE'S REBBI DURING THE FESTIVAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A Beraisa relates that Rebbi Ila'i once went to greet his Rebbi, Rebbi Eliezer, during Sukos. Rebbi Eliezer asked him why he left his home when the Torah requires that one stay home and rejoice with one's wife during the festival.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the requirement to stay home with one's wife during the festival conflicts with the requirement to travel to one's Rebbi on the festival. Rebbi Yitzchak says that the requirement to visit one's Rebbi is learned from the words of the Shunamite woman's husband, who asked his wife, 'Why are you going to him (the prophet Elisha) today? Today is not Rosh Chodesh and not Shabbos' (Melachim II 4:23). This verse teaches the requirement to visit one's Rebbi on Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. Accordingly, Rebbi Ila'i was justified in going to visit Rebbi Eliezer during Sukos.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The verse from which the requirement to visit one's Rebbi is derived mentions only Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. It makes no mention of Yom Tov, and thus it does not provide a source for the obligation to visit one's Rebbi on Yom Tov. 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (here, and in Rosh Hashanah 16b) addresses this question. He says that the Mitzvah to visit one's Rebbi includes three parts. First, when one's Rebbi is in the same town, he is required to visit his Rebbi every day. Second, when one's Rebbi is outside of the town but within the Techum Shabbos (2000 Amos), he is required to visit his Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. Third, when one's Rebbi lives beyond the Techum Shabbos of one's town, he is required to visit his Rebbi only on the festival (he travels before Yom Tov or during Chol ha'Mo'ed when there is no prohibition of Techum).
</p><p>
In the case of the Shunamite woman, Elisha lived outside of the town but within the Techum Shabbos, and thus her husband mentioned only Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. When Rebbi Yitzchak teaches this Halachah, he does not mention the requirement to visit one's Rebbi every day when the Rebbi lives in the same town, because everyone is heedful of that requirement (since it requires minimal effort). He mentions the Halachah only with regard to Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos, because when the Rebbi lives in a different town, a person tends to neglect the requirement to visit him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that if one is required to visit his Rebbi on Rosh Chodesh, then certainly one is required to visit his Rebbi on Yom Tov, even though the verse does not specifically mention Yom Tov. (The Maharsha does not address why Yom Tov is not mentioned in the verse.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TUREI EVEN</b> in Rosh Hashanah (16b) and the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Seder Olam Rabah, chapter 3; see also <b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> in 'Olelos,' #13) point out that it is odd that the verse mentions Rosh Chodesh before Shabbos. It should mention Shabbos first, because Shabbos comes more frequently than Rosh Chodesh. It must be that the word 'Shabbos' in the verse refers to Yom Tov (as the Torah itself refers to Yom Tov as 'Shabbos,' as in Vayikra 23:16).
</p><p>
(d) Although ideally one should visit his Rebbi every day (in order to learn Torah from him), it is not always possible to do so, because a person is occupied with his work throughout the week. Therefore, the Mitzvah to visit one's Rebbi requires that he visit him only when he is not working. This is evident from the verse in Melachim. The husband of the Shunamite woman mentioned specifically Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, days on which a woman does not perform Melachah (Shabbos, because of the prohibition of Melachah, and Rosh Chodesh, because of the custom for women to refrain from Melachah on that day), because only on those days would she be obligated to visit Elisha. This implies that on days on which a <i>man</i> does not perform Melachah (Shabbos and Yom Tov), he <i>should</i> visit his Rebbi. A woman, however, is not free to visit the Rebbi during Yom Tov, because on Yom Tov she is occupied with cooking and other responsibilities. A woman has time to visit the Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. (<b>ETZ YOSEF</b>, in the name of the <b>IYEI HA'YAM</b>)
<br> 
<br>(e) The <b>CHANUKAS HA'TORAH</b> (Rosh Hashanah 16b) explains that since it is inappropriate for a woman to visit the Rebbi when his Talmidim are there (see Kidushin 81a), the only time she would be obligated to visit him is when the Talmidim are not there. Thus, the husband of the Shunamite woman asked her why she was going to the prophet when it was not Rosh Chodesh or Shabbos -- days on which the Talmidim are not with their Rebbi, but are home. The verse implies that she has no obligation to visit the Rebbi on the festival, which must be due to the fact that on the festival, his Talmidim visit him. Hence, the verse indeed teaches that one is obligated to visit his Rebbi on the festival!
</p><p>
(f) <b>RAV YONASAN EIBESHITZ</b> (Ya'aros Devash 1:12 and elsewhere) explains that during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash (when Elisha lived), everyone would go to greet the presence of the Shechinah in Yerushalayim. They would visit the Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, when there was no requirement to go to Yerushalayim. After the Churban, the practice was instituted to visit the Rebbi in place of going to Yerushalayim, because a Talmid Chacham reflects the presence of the Shechinah. (See also <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>, and <b>MALBIM</b> to Melachim II 4:23, who give similar explanations.)
</p><p>
(g) The <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> (OC 2:94) suggests the opposite approach. When the verse mentions Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos, it includes Yom Tov as well. It refers to all days that have additional Kedushah, days on which an additional Korban (the Korban Musaf) is offered. Due to the holiness of those days, the Rebbi has a heightened ability to influence his Talmidim, and his Talmidim are more receptive to his influence. Hence, a Talmid should visit his Rebbi on those days. However, a Talmid is not obligated to visit his Rebbi on <i>all</i> of those days, lest he give more honor to his Rebbi than he gives to the Shechinah (which he visits only on the three festivals). The Gemara in Kidushin (33b) teaches that it is not proper for the honor of the Shechinah to be less than the honor of one's Rebbi, and thus the obligation to visit one's Rebbi can apply only as much as, but not more than, one is obligated to visit the Shechinah. Therefore, the Gemara says that one is obligated to visit his Rebbi on each of the three festivals.
</p><p>
Based on this, the Noda b'Yehudah explains that today, when the Beis ha'Mikdash has not yet been rebuilt, there is no obligation to visit one's Rebbi during the festival (unless, of course, one goes with intent to learn Torah from him), since there is no obligation to visit the Shechinah at the Beis ha'Mikdash. The honor given to one's Rebbi should not be greater than the honor given to the Shechinah. 
</p><p>
Accordingly, The <b>TUR</b> and the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> -- who record only the Halachos that are relevant in practice in when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing -- omit this Halachah. The <b>RAMBAM</b>, though, mentions this Halachah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:7), because he includes all of the Halachos that are relevant when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing.
</p><p>
(See also <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> to Rosh Hashanah 16b, <b>CHIDUSHEI GE'ONIM</b> in the Ein Yakov, and <b>EINEI SHMUEL</b> for other approaches. See also <b>DIVREI SHALOM</b> 2:25.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) REBBI ELIEZER'S PRACTICE NEVER TO SAY ANYTHING HE DID NOT HEAR FROM HIS TEACHERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan b'Rebbi Ila'i asked Rebbi Eliezer whether one may cover a Sukah with a sheet on a sunny day, when the heat causes the occupants discomfort. Rebbi Eliezer did not answer the question, because it was his practice never to say a Halachah which he did not hear from his Rebbi. The Gemara in Yoma (66b) relates a similar interaction wherein Rebbi Eliezer did not answer a number of questions because he did not hear the answers from his Rebbi.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask that on several occasions Rebbi Eliezer seems to contradict this practice. In the debate of 'Tanur Shel Achnai' (Bava Metzia 59b), Rebbi Eliezer declared a certain type of oven to be Tahor when all of the other Chachamim ruled that it was Tamei. The Chachamim acted harshly with him and excommunicated him. The <b>RAMBAN</b> there explains that they were strict with him because he acted in the manner of a 'Zaken Mamrei.' A 'Zaken Mamrei' is a sage who opposes the opinion of the rest of the Chachamim, when their opinion is based on a tradition and the opposing sage's opinion is based on his own logic. In the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash, a 'Zaken Mamrei' was punished with death (Sanhedrin 88a). Since Rebbi Eliezer's opinion in that case was based on his own logic and opposed the opinion of the Chachamim which they had received from their teachers, his conduct was similar to that of a 'Zaken Mamrei,' and thus the Chachamim excommunicated him.
</p><p>
In that case, Rebbi Eliezer presented an opinion that he did not hear from his Rebbi. How is his conduct in that case to be reconciled with his practice never to say anything that he did not hear from his Rebbi? (<b>CHAVOS YA'IR</b> #94, DH uv'Emes)
</p><p>
In addition, Avos d'Rebbi Nasan (chapter 6) relates that Rebbi Eliezer was once asked by his Rebbi to rise and speak. He declined, but his Rebbi and the other Talmidim prevailed upon him and he consented. He discoursed in ways that 'no ear had ever heard before' -- including his Rebbi's! (<b>RAV CHAIM SHMUELEVITZ</b> zt'l, Sichos Musar 5731, #23)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> in Yoma (66b) answers that the practice not to say anything that one did not hear from his Rebbi is a form of showing honor for one's Rebbi. This form of honor applies only when the Rebbi is alive. Rebbi Eliezer said things that he had not heard from his teachers only after they had died.
</p><p>
This explains why he said an original teaching in the case of 'Tanur Shel Achnai.' However, in the incident related in Avos d'Rebbi Nasan, his Rebbi clearly was alive, as it was his Rebbi who asked him to speak. Perhaps in that situation, Rebbi Eliezer showed honor to his Rebbi by heeding his request to relate a novel teaching that he had not heard from his Rebbi.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAVOS YA'IR</b> answers that Rebbi Eliezer certainly discussed Halachos with his teachers and colleagues and offered his own novel teachings. However, when he was called upon to issue practical Halachic rulings, he would say the Halachah only as his Rebbi had taught it to him (or when his Rebbi had agreed to his opinion). In the case of 'Tanur Shel Achnai,' he did not issue a Halachic ruling. Rather, he argued with the opinion of the Chachamim because he disagreed with their logic.
</p><p>
This approach, however, is difficult to understand, because in the incident of 'Tanur Shel Achnai,' the Gemara says that the Chachamim brought all of the ovens that Rebbi Eliezer had ruled to be Tahor and destroyed them, in protest to his opinion. This clearly shows that he had issued practical Halachic rulings concerning many ovens.
</p><p>
The Chavos Ya'ir apparently understands that the Chachamim brought all of the ovens that Rebbi Eliezer had <i>wanted</i> to declare Tahor, but he never actually declared them Tahor.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV CHAIM SHMUELEVITZ</b> zt'l explains that Rebbi Eliezer certainly said Halachos that he did not hear from his teachers. However, he said them only when he had determined that his teachers would have come to the same conclusion.
</p><p>
The incident recorded in Avos d'Rebbi Nasan supports this answer. The Tana there relates that after Rebbi Eliezer finished his discourse, his Rebbi approached him and kissed him on the forehead. This implies that his Rebbi was happy that Rebbi Eliezer had mastered his teachings and was able to come to the same conclusions that he would have taught himself.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> One may not move from Sukah to 
          Sukah, nor build a Sukah on Chol ha'Moed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> One may do both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  They agree that a collapsed Sukah may be 
          rebuilt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is R. Eliezer's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk dictates that the Sukah 
               must be fit for seven days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will the Chachamim 
               understand the Pasuk?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It instructs that the Sukah be 
               made on the Chag, at any point during the 
               Chag.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely it is obvious that a collapsed 
          Sukah may be rebuilt!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have invalidated the rebuilt 
          Sukah as not having been built for seven days.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF A SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> One must have one's own Sukah 
          (just as one must have one's own Lulav) based 
          on Lecha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> While true of Lulav, this is not 
          true of Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is since the words Kol ha'Ezrach 
               indicate that all of Israel could be under 
               one Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Surely that Sukah not the property of each 
               one.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will Chachamim interpret Lecha 
          (if, indeed, a borrowed Sukah is Kesheirah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It prohibits a Sukah made of stolen 
          materials.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Eliezer interpret Kol 
          ha'Ezrach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> To allow a Sukah to be built by a 
          convert or Bar Mitzvah during Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will the Chachamim provide for 
          this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Once we have ruled that a Sukah may be 
          built on Chol ha'Moed, no special exemption is 
          required!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>VISITING ONE'S RAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Ilai went to visit his Rebbi, R. Eliezer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer pointed out that by leaving his 
          wife, R. Ilai was not properly fulfilling his 
          Regel obligations.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is consistent with R. Eliezer's 
               declaration that the lazy are to be 
               praised.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> For even though they remain at home due to 
               their laziness, they benefit by properly 
               fulfilling the Torah's obligation to bring 
               joy to one's wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we have learned that it is an 
          obligation to visit one's Rebbi on the Regel 
          (inferred from the exchange between the 
          Shunamis and her husband in Melachim II, 
          4:23)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That obligation holds only when he is 
          able to visit his Rebbi and return at night.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>CARE IN SAYING ONLY THAT WHICH ONE HEARD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  In the reported incident, R. Eliezer refused to 
          answer a question (regarding adding to a 
          temporary Ohel on Shabbos) because he had not 
          heard that Din from his teachers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Instead, he changed the subject.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When his student acted on his own (and 
               extended the Ohel), R. Eliezer distanced 
               himself from the Sukah so as not to give 
               the impression that his student was acting 
               on his advice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In the incident we see that R. 
          Eliezer had left his home Sukah, violating his 
          own rule that one must not go from Sukah to 
          Sukah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is speaking on a different Regel, 
          not Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But still, he should have stayed home 
          with his wife, according to his own teaching!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was a Shabbos, and not a Regel at 
          all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the prohibition of extending the 
          Ohel could have been learned from R. Eliezer's 
          own position restricting the use of a window 
          shutter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Eliezer):</font></b> The window cover may only be 
               put in place if it has a string and is 
               hung, having been obviously designated as 
               removable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Chachamim):</font></b> It may be put in place in 
               either case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The window cover becomes Batel to the 
          house, and is considered building on Shabbos; 
          whereas the sheet in the Sukah was never meant 
          to stay there.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF R. ELIEZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> R. Eliezer was asked 30 questions 
          regarding the laws of Sukah, 12 of which he 
          responded to as having heard them from his 
          teachers, and 18 he did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> He reported having 
          heard 18 and had not heard 12.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer was asked if, indeed, he is so 
          careful not to say anything which he did not 
          hear from his teacher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer responded (being forced to speak 
          about himself, something which he did not hear 
          from his teachers) listing his personal 
          attributes, including the fact that he never 
          said anything which he had not heard from his 
          teachers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A similar and even larger list of qualities is 
          attributed to R. Yochanan b. Zakai, upon whom 
          R. Eliezer modeled his qualities.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Of the 80 students of the great Hillel (whose 
          strengths are described), R. Yochanan b. Zakai 
          was the least.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa goes on to list every area of 
               knowledge which R. Yochanan b. Zakai had 
               mastered.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If this was true of the least of Hillel's 
               disciples, what could be imagined of the 
               greatest of them, Yonasan b. Uziel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It is said of Yonasan b. Uziel that birds 
               flying overhead were singed when he 
               studied.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' SUKAH OBLIGATIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One must have his head, the majority of his 
          body and his table in the Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai invalidates the Sukah if his 
               table is within the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel allows this arrangement.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel attempt to support their 
               position citing the elders who silently 
               acquiesced while R. Yochanan b. HaChornis 
               sat with his table in the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai respond that indeed all the 
               visitors told R. Yochanan b. HaChornis 
               that he could not have fulfilled his 
               Mitzvah in this manner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Women, slaves and minors are exempt from Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A boy who no longer needs his mother is 
          obligated.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Elder Shamai made a Sukah above his 
          daughter-in- law's bed to provide a Sukah for 
          her child.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EXEMPTION OF WOMEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for their 
          exemption?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Heh of ha'Ezrach excludes women, 
          while Kol includes minors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Are we to thus infer that Ezrach 
          without the Heh would imply both men and women, 
          contrary to the Beraisa (where ha'Ezrach comes 
          in <i>include</i> women in the afflictions of Yom 
          Kipur)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The Heh can either include or 
          exclude, but the matter is decided through 
          Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai and then attributed 
          to the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which, Sukah or Yom Kipur, is derived 
          from the Pasuk itself, and which comes from 
          Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Additional Question:</font></b> We do not need either of 
          these, given that Sukah is time tied, thus 
          exempting women, and a woman's obligation to 
          abstain on Yom Kipur is learned from the Pasuk 
          (as taught by R. Yehudah citing Rav)!?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SITTING IN A SUKAH IN THE RAIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one is permitted to leave the Sukah when it rains, but only when the rain is enough to spoil the 'Mikpeh' (a certain type of thick, cooked dish). The Mishnah implies that one is merely <i>permitted</i>, but not <i>required</i>, to leave the Sukah. This seems to be the ruling of the <b>REMA</b> (OC 639:7) who writes that one who eats in the Sukah in the rain does not receive any reward for his act, and he is called a 'Hedyot,' a fool. The Rema's words imply that there is no <i>prohibition</i> to stay in the Sukah in the rain. Rather, one merely fulfills no Mitzvah by doing so.
</p><p>
The <b>ONEG YOM TOV</b> (OC 49) asks that the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (beginning of OC 638) rules that the wood used to build a Sukah is prohibited mid'Oraisa to be used for any other purpose for the duration of the festival, as the Gemara (9a) says. This prohibition includes both the wood of the walls and that of the Sechach. The Rema there adds that even a verbal stipulation before the festival does not permit the wood in the event that the Sukah collapses.
</p><p>
The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 28a) teaches that when a person makes an oath not to derive any benefit from a house, he is not permitted to sit in the house. This implies that sitting in a house is considered a form of benefit from the house. Similarly, sitting in a Sukah is considered a form of benefit from the Sukah.
</p><p>
Accordingly, one should be <i>prohibited</i> from sitting in the Sukah when it rains, since he does not fulfill the Mitzvah at that moment and he derives personal benefit from the walls and Sechach which protect him from the rain. Why, then is he permitted to remain in the Sukah when it rains?
</p><p>
The Oneg Yom Tov suggests that perhaps the prohibition to derive personal benefit from the wood and Sechach of a Sukah applies only to forms of usage that conflict with the Mitzvah of Sukah (as <b>TOSFOS</b> implies in Shabbos 22a), such as when one dismantles the Sukah to use its wood.
</p><p>
However, he counters that this suggestion is implausible for a number of reasons. First, the Gemara in Shabbos (22a) says that one may not count money in front of the Chanukah lights because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (disgrace to the Mitzvah). This implies that even when there is no prohibition against using the Mitzvah object for personal use (because of 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso'), there still should be a prohibition against disgracing the Mitzvah object ('Bizuy') by using it for personal use. Second, the Gemara later in Sukah (37b) says that one may not smell a Hadas branch which has been set aside for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, because it is 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso.' Smelling the Hadas does not conflict with the Mitzvah for which the Hadas was designated, and yet the act is still prohibited. Third, the Gemara earlier (9a) compares the Mitzvah of Sukah to the Mitzvah of Korban Chagigah. Just as one is prohibited to derive benefit from a Korban Chagigah in any manner, even if that benefit does not conflict with the Mitzvah, so, too, one should be prohibited to derive any form of benefit from a Sukah.
</p><p>
Why, then, is one not prohibited from sitting in a Sukah when it rains?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ONEG YOM TOV</b> answers that the Torah's prohibition against using the material of the Sukah for personal benefit does not apply when a Sukah collapses. In such a case, to benefit from the Sukah is prohibited only mid'Rabanan (as the <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 638:5) writes). Similarly, perhaps when one covers the top of the Sukah (and temporarily renders it invalid), he is prohibited only mid'Rabanan from using the Sukah for personal benefit. If the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan, then it is likely that the Rabanan did not prohibit one from deriving personal benefit from the Sukah through as simple an act as sitting in the Sukah when it rains, because such an act is in no way disgraceful to the Sukah.
</p><p>
Why, though, should one be permitted to sit in a Sukah when it rains when the Sukah is <i>not</i> covered?
</p><p>
The Gemara says that 'the Torah was not given to angels' (Yoma 69a). For that reason, the Kohanim are permitted to wear the Bigdei Kehunah even after they have completed the Avodah, because it is impossible to remove the clothing at the very moment that they complete the Avodah. For the same reason, one should be permitted to sit in a Sukah after the Mitzvah of Sukah has been completed.
</p><p>
This logic, though, should apply only when one was in the Sukah before it started to rain. In such a case, he may remain in the Sukah even though he no longer fulfills the Mitzvah, because 'the Torah was not given to angels.' Why, though, may one <i>enter</i> a Sukah when it is already raining? Perhaps the principle that 'the Torah was not given to angels' removes the Torah prohibition to enter the Sukah in the rain and makes it prohibited only mid'Rabanan. If the prohibition is mid'Rabanan, then perhaps the Rabanan did not apply the prohibition against benefiting from a Sukah in a situation where one merely wants to sit in the Sukah in the rain, since that act is not disgraceful to the Sukah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> (2:5) writes that the reason why one may sit in a Sukah in the rain is the reason that the Oneg Yom Tov initially suggested and then rejected. The prohibition applies only to forms of usage that conflict with the Mitzvah of Sukah. One may not benefit from the Sukah when that form of benefit detracts from its utilization as a Sukah. 
</p><p>
In the case of the prohibition against smelling the Hadas, it is clear from the Gemara that the only reason smelling is prohibited is because the Hadas is commonly used for its aroma. When one designates the Hadas for the Mitzvah, he thereby sets it apart from its most common use. This is in contrast to the Esrog, for example, which one is permitted to smell during Sukos because its most common use (the rest of the year) is not its aroma. The prohibition against smelling the object of a Mitzvah applies only to a Hadas, and not to other Mitzvah objects. (The <b>RASHBA</b> adds that if one uses Hadas branches as the walls for his Sukah (because fragrant wood makes good walls), then he is <i>permitted</i> to smell them during Sukos. This is because he uses it only as a piece of wood and not as the object of an actual Mitzvah.)
</p><p>
When the Gemara earlier (9a) compares the Mitzvah of Sukah to the Mitzvah of Korban Chagigah, the Gemara's intention is to teach that just as an object is Kadosh because it is designated to be used for a Korban, so, too, an object (such as a Sukah) can become 'set aside (Huktzah) for a Mitzvah' when it is designated for a Mitzvah. The comparison does <i>not</i> teach that one is prohibited to derive any form of personal benefit from a Sukah just as one is prohibited to derive any form of benefit from a Korban Chagigah, even if that benefit does not conflict with the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(The Chazon Yechezkel does not address the question from the Gemara in Shabbos (22a), which says that one may not count money in front of the Chanukah lights. Perhaps there is an obvious difference between the two cases. There, it is clearly a disgrace to the Mitzvah of the Chanukah lights for one to count money in front of them. In the case of one who sits in a Sukah to protect himself from the rain, he merely sits underneath the object of the Mitzvah, an act which is not disgraceful to the Mitzvah.)
</p><p>
The Chazon Yechezkel cites support for his answer from the Gemara earlier (10b). The Gemara there relates that the servant of Rav Ashi placed a wet cloak on top of the Sukah to dry. Although that act involved benefiting from the Sechach of the Sukah, it was permitted because it did not detract from the use of the Sukah.
</p><p>
(This approach also seems to be the view of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos 42b, DH v'Ein, and 45a, DH Ela. Tosfos there explains that a flame that was lit for use as a Shabbos light may be moved (according to Rebbi Shimon), because moving it does not detract from the Mitzvah. One is prohibited, however, to use the oil that drips from the lamp, because at the time the flame was lit the removal of the oil would have detracted from the Mitzvah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Ezrach means men, and ha'Ezrach 
          should include women, who are exempt because of 
          the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do we need a tradition to 
               exempt women from Sukah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We might have obligated 
               them as part of the obligation to dwell in 
               the Sukah as one would dwell in his home, 
               with his wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We might have obligated 
               women due to the existing connection 
               between the night of Sukos and the night 
               of Pesach, where women are obligated to 
               eat Matzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Sukah is Halachah l'Moshe 
          mi'Sinai, then what, indeed, does the Heh in 
          the Pasuk teach us?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It includes converts (whom we might 
          have excluded due to the word Yisrael in the 
          Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need a Pasuk to include 
          women in Yom Kipur, given the teaching of R. 
          Yehudah citing Rav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> To include women in the minutes added 
          to Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We might have exempted women from these 
               minutes given that they are not subject to 
               the warnings and punishments of Yom Kipur 
               itself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This lesser status might be translated 
               into an exemption for women which the 
               Pasuk precludes.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'KOL' TO INCLUDE MINORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah exempts minors!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The inclusion speaks of minors who are 
          educable, while the exemption refers to those 
          younger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the obligation of educable minors 
          in Mitzvos is mid'Rabanan, and is surely is not 
          derived from a Pasuk!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed it is mid'Rabanan, and the Pasuk 
          is only used as an Asmachta.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MINOR WHO NO LONGER NEEDS HIS MOTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When is a minor considered 
          independent of his mother?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Bei R. Yanai):</font></b> When he can clean 
          himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Additional Answer (Resh Lakish):</font></b> When he awakes 
          and does not call out for his mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But even older children may call out 
          Mother upon awaking!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We mean that he calls out repeatedly 
          until mother responds.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE GRANDSON OF SHAMAI THE ELDER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The cited incident (wherein Shamai 
          prepared a Sukah for his grandson) contradicts 
          the very law of Mishnah (exempting minors) 
          which it is supposed to illustrate!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> By emending the Mishnah we learn that 
          minors are exempt, but Shamai was stringent 
          regarding minors.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' RAIN ON THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One's principle residence is in the Sukah for 
          seven days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rain exempts one from the Sukah once porridge 
          would spoil from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rainfall on Sukos is analogous to a servant who 
          gave the cup to his master and who spilled it 
          in his face.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TESHVU K'EIN TADURU'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for the Sukah 
          obligations listed in the Beraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The word Teshvu is understood to mean 
          reside as one would in one's house, including 
          in-depth study.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Rava taught that, while lesser 
          learning takes place in the Sukah, in-depth 
          study takes place outside?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One speaks of reviewing that which is 
          known to him, and the exemption speaks of 
          in-depth analysis which one may do where he is 
          most comfortable.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The concept of these two levels of study 
               is illustrated by Rava and Rami b. Chama.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> After hearing the Shiur from R. Chisda 
               they would briefly overview all of the 
               covered points, and only then analyze them 
               in-depth.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER HALACHOS REGARDING RESIDING IN THE SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Cups which are not unseemly may remain 
          in the Sukah after their use, but dishes, 
          earthenware and wood water vessels should be 
          removed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rava allowed the earthenware lamp to remain, 
          while Yesh Omrim say that it must be removed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  They are not arguing, but teaching a Halachah 
          which depends on the size of the Sukah (if 
          there is ample room for the lamp to remain).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXEMPTION DUE TO RAINFALL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  He is exempt if the porridge would spoil, a 
          dish which is readily spoiled by even a small 
          amount of rain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Abaye asked R. Yosef why is was exempting 
          himself due to wind which was dropping bits of 
          Sechach onto his food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosef taught him that since he is very 
          particular, this constitutes the state of 
          'spoiled porridge' for him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REQUIREMENT TO RETURN AFTER THE RAIN STOPS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One who is forced out of the Sukah due to rain 
          need not go back up to the Sukah until he is 
          done with his meal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, he may sleep until 'Yaor.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does Yaor mean (with an Ayin) until 
          he wakes up (and he would then have to go back 
          up, even during the night) or does it mean 
          (with an Aleph) that he needs to go back up 
          only once the sun rises?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that he may remain 
          until light, and the Amud ha'Shachar arrives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But those are contradictory times!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It should read until (both) he wakes up 
          and Amud ha'Shachar arrives.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RAIN IS ANALOGOUS TO THE SERVANT...</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who spilled the water in the analogy 
          (the servant, indicative of our carelessness) 
          or the Master (indicative of Hashem's 
          displeasure with our service)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> The Master spilled it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER NEGATIVE INDICATIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The sun being obscured is a bad omen for the 
          world (analogous to a King who turned out the 
          lights on the meal he provided for his 
          servants).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> The affliction of the celestial 
          lights is a bad sign to those who are 
          accustomed to affliction (the Jews, who have so 
          much potential, and, by analogy, the student 
          who is regularly hit is more concerned with the 
          teacher's staff).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The affliction of the sun is bad for the 
          gentiles while that of the moon is bad for the 
          Jews (who count their calendar by the moon).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly, the position of the sun when it is 
          afflicted indicates the bad sign for those in 
          that direction.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The color of the afflicted sun indicates the 
          nature of the bad omen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The timing (at sunrise or at sunset) indicates 
          whether the bad tidings are close or further in 
          coming (may be understood either way).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  When a People is afflicted, its god is 
          afflicted, as we learn from the Pasuk 
          describing the affliction of Egypt and its 
          gods.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  When the Jews do Hashem's will, they can leave 
          all the worrying about these matters to the 
          Gentiles.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'AVEIROS' WHICH BRING AFFLICTIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Four Aveiros cause the sun to be afflicted (as 
          listed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Four Aveiros cause the property of homeowners 
          to be turned over to the government (as 
          listed).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: RAIN DURING SUKOS, THE OVERTURNED PITCHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (28b) says that rain during the festival that prevents the Jews from dwelling in their Sukos is comparable to a servant who prepared a drink to serve to his master 'and he poured a pitcher on his face.'
</p><p>
(The Gemara in Ta'anis (2b) says that the Arba'as ha'Minim, which require water in order to grow, are held during Sukos as a form of supplication to Hash-m that He send water to the world. If He is not pleased with our service, He throws the water back at us, as it were.)
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> asks why the Mishnah says 'Limzog' ('to dilute'), which refers to the act of diluting a cup of wine with water. The Mishnah should say instead that the servant came 'to give' a cup to his master, and not 'to dilute' a cup for his master. (<b>KOL ELIYAHU</b> #85)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Vilna Ga'on explains that the days before Sukos, from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur, are days of judgment. During those days, Hash-m acts with strict justice. The days of Sukos, during which we are surrounded with Mitzvos (the Sukah and the Arba'as ha'Minim), are days of Divine mercy and blessing. During Sukos, which occurs during the time of gathering in the fruits from the fields, Hash-m showers us with bountiful blessing.
</p><p>
When Hash-m causes rain to fall and prevents us from sitting in the Sukah, it shows that He does not want us to have the ability to arouse His mercy by being surrounded by the Mitzvah of Sukah. Wine, in its raw state, is very sharp, and alludes to the attribute of justice. As Hashem's servants, we try to mix the wine with water by performing Mitzvos in order to make the wine, the justice, less sharp. When the Mishnah says that the master 'poured a pitcher on his face,' it means that Hash-m does not want to mix any water with the wine, but rather He wants the wine to remain sharp and His attribute of strict justice to dominate.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SUN DIMINUTIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the prognostic properties of sun diminutions ('Likuy Chamah') as well as those of the moon and other celestial bodies. 'Likuy Chamah' seem to refer to solar and lunar eclipses.
</p><p>
<b>RAV YONASAN EIBESHITZ</b> (Ya'aros Devash, volume 2, p. 67b) asks that an eclipse is a natural phenomenon that occurs according to a set astronomical pattern. How can a natural phenomenon be a harbinger of inauspicious times, if it occurs according to a predictable schedule?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV YONASAN EIBESHITZ</b> explains that the Gemara here does not refer to eclipses, because an eclipse is not called a 'diminution' ('Likuy') of the heavenly bodies. Eclipses are merely shadows that are cast when the light of the sun is blocked by another celestial body from reaching the earth. Rather, the Gemara refers to sunspots and similar phenomena which occur on the moon (such as transient lunar phenomena).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> says that the Gemara indeed refers to eclipses, and the question of Rav Yonasan Eibshitz is not problematic for the following reason. <b>RASHI</b> in Bereishis (1:14) writes that the fourth day of the week (Wednesday) is predisposed to certain illnesses. Even though the day occurs on a natural calendrical cycle, it is still associated with tribulations. Similarly, the Chachamim knew that the set times that Hash-m arranges for eclipses to occur are times of judgment for the world. Therefore, it is possible for an eclipse to be both a natural phenomenon and an ominous omen.
</p><p>
How, though, does this approach explain the Gemara's statement that 'the sun is diminished due to four types of sins'? If eclipses (the 'diminishing' of the sun) occur according to a natural pattern, they how can they occur as a result of the sins of man? The Aruch la'Ner answers that the Gemara does not mean that such sins must be committed in order for there to be an eclipse. Rather, the Gemara means that during the period that follows an eclipse, Hash-m passes judgment on those who have committed these particular sins.
</p><p>
The Aruch la'Ner proves that the Chachamim understood the mechanics of an eclipse. He points out that the Gemara repeatedly refers to an eclipse as 'during the <i>time</i> (bi'Zeman) that an eclipse occurs.' These words imply that an eclipse happens at an established, known time.
</p><p>
The Aruch la'Ner explains further that the sins associated with a lunar eclipse are all sins that harm the sinner himself as much it harms others: 1. One who writes lies about others reveals his own faults, because 'he who finds fault in others suffers from the same fault' (Kidushin 70a). 2. One who bears false witness loses the respect and trust of the very people who hired him (Sanhedrin 31a). 3. When one allows his animals to graze in the fields of others, others will allow their animals to graze in his fields. 4. One who cuts down a fruit tree will suffer from the loss of the fruit as much as anyone else. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Bishvil) writes that he does not know why these specific sins are associated with eclipses of the moon. The Aruch la'Ner suggests that perhaps the very mechanism of a lunar eclipse symbolizes the nature of these sins. When the earth blocks the light of the sun from reaching the moon and thereby causes a lunar eclipse, it gives the impression as though it is trying to 'harm' the moon by blocking its light. However, it is the earth itself that suffers by losing its moonlight during the eclipse. 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Four Aveiros cause the property of homeowners 
          to be lost (as listed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The worst (and causal) offence is a haughty 
          spirit.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK LULAV HA'GAZUL</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' 'PESULIM' OF A LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A stolen or dried out Lulav is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If it is destined to be burned, as in the case 
          of an Asheirah tree or an Ir ha'Nidachas, it is 
          Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If the head of the Lulav is cut off, or if its 
          leaves severed from its spine, it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> If its leaves spread away from its 
          spine it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> They should be tied above.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Lulavim grown in hard rocky mountains (with 
          short leaves) are Kosher (as long as one leaf 
          reaches the one after it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A Lulav which has three Tefachim, in addition 
          to the one needed to shake it, is Kosher.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) WHY IS A DRY LULAV INVALID?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a dry Lulav ('Yavesh') is invalid and may not be used for the Mitzvah. Why is a dry Lulav invalid?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Yavesh) writes that the Mitzvah of Lulav must be 'Mehuderes,' beautifully glorified, as the verse teaches, 'Zeh Keli v'Anvehu' -- 'This is my G-d and I shall glorify Him' (Shemos 15:2).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lulav) asks that the principle of 'v'Anvehu' applies to <i>all</i> Mitzvos, and yet no other Mitzvah is invalid if it is not done in a beautiful manner.
</p><p>
The Acharonim explain that Rashi maintains that the principle of 'v'Anvehu' applies in two different ways. The first way is a 'l'Chatchilah' requirement; it instructs a person to beautify every Mitzvah that he performs, but it does not invalidate the Mitzvah if he fails to beautify it. The principle of 'v'Anvehu' teaches that one should add beauty to an object of a Mitzvah which already has beauty.
</p><p>
The second way that 'v'Anvehu' applies is that it instructs a person to add beauty to an object of a Mitzvah that has <i>no</i> beauty, and if no beauty is added then the Mitzvah is invalid. A dry Lulav is unsightly and lacks beauty. In such a case, one's failure to beautify the Mitzvah invalidates it. (See Insights to 29:5:a for Rashi's source for this understanding.)
</p><p>
Perhaps this second application of 'v'Anvehu' applies only where the Torah requires that a product of nature, in its original state, be used for the Mitzvah. Where the Torah requires that one may not use a processed object for the Mitzvah, but rather an object in its natural state, the object must not have deteriorated from its natural state. In this case, 'v'Anvehu' is not a secondary or external requirement for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah; rather, it is an inherent part of the object that must be used for the Mitzvah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lulav) explains that the Pesul of a dry Lulav is derived from the Pesul of a dry Esrog. The Torah says that an Esrog must be a 'Pri Etz Hadar' (Vayikra 23:40), which means that it must be beautiful (Sukah 31a). The requirement that the other Minim also be beautiful is derived from the Esrog through a Hekesh (see Gemara there).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (in <b>LULAV HA'GADOL</b>, cited by the <b>ROSH</b>) quotes the Yerushalmi that states that the Pesul of a dry Lulav is derived from the verse, 'Lo ha'Mesim Yehalelu Kah' -- 'The dead cannot praise Hash-m' (Tehilim 115:17). The verse teaches that something which is dead cannot be used to praise Hash-m. A dried Lulav is considered dead, since it has lost its color and vitality (see following Insight).
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HOW DRY IS A DRY LULAV?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a dry Lulav ('Yavesh') is invalid and may not be used for the Mitzvah. How dry is considered 'Yavesh'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lulav) cites an opinion which suggests that after twelve months, any object is considered to be completely dried out.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> rejects that opinion and asserts instead that if an object is so dry that it cracks when it is bent, it is considered dried out and may no longer be used for the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (cited by the Rosh) rejects Tosfos' opinion and says that only food that is dry cracks when bent. Trees and other forms of flora have different criteria for whether they are considered dried out. According to the Ba'al ha'Me'or, a plant is considered dried out when it is no longer moist at all. Not only is it wilted, but no moisture at all is visible in it.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, based on the Yerushalmi (see above, Insights to 29:3:c), says that a plant is considered dried out when it is so dry that it has no vitality left, such that even if one would soak it in water for several days it would not regain any life. That state of dryness is reached when the leaves turn white and lose all traces of green. The <b>ROSH</b> sides with this opinion.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 645:5) rules like the Ra'avad, that when a Lulav has lost all of its green color it is considered dried out and is invalid. The <b>REMA</b> writes that in extenuating circumstances, such as when there are no other Lulavim available, the custom is to rely on the opinion of Tosfos and to use a Lulav even though it is completely white, as long as its leaves do not crack when bent.
</p><p>


<font><b>5) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 'PESUL' OF A DRIED LULAV AND THE 'PESUL' OF A STOLEN LULAV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara differentiates between the Pesul of 'Yavesh' (a dried out Lulav) and the Pesul of 'Gazul' (a stolen Lulav). Although the Mishnah implies that both Pesulim apply all seven days of the festival, the Gemara questions this implication. A dry Lulav certainly is invalid all seven days, because it is not 'Hadar.' However, a stolen Lulav should be invalid only on the first day, and not on all seven days, because the verse of 'Lachem' -- which teaches that the Lulav must be owned by the person who uses it to fulfill the Mitzvah -- applies only on the first day of Sukos, as it says, 'You shall take for yourselves (Lachem) on the first day...' (Vayikra 23:40). Rebbi Yochanan therefore gives a different reason for why a stolen Lulav is invalid all seven days. Shmuel concludes that a stolen Lulav indeed is invalid only on the first day of Sukos.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assume that 'Lachem' applies only on the first day, while 'Hadar' applies on all seven days? The Torah says both 'Lachem' and 'Hadar' in the same verse: 'You shall take for yourselves (Lachem) on the first day the fruit of the Hadar tree' (Vayikra 23:40)! If 'Lachem' refers only to the 'first day,' then 'Hadar' must also refer only to the 'first day.'
</p><p>
If, on the other hand, 'Hadar' applies all seven days, then 'Lachem' also must apply all seven days. Indeed, <b>TOSFOS</b> and the Rishonim point out that the Gemara later (41b) teaches that the Mitzvah to hold the Lulav all seven days of the festival applies to every male and not just to Beis Din, as is derived from the verse, 'You shall take (u'Lekachtem),' which implies that everyone must hold the Lulav and not just Beis Din. Since the word 'u'Lekachtem' in the verse applies all seven days, the word 'Lachem' should also apply all seven days.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Lo Shena) explains that the Gemara here is discussing the Mitzvah of Lulav outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, where the Mitzvah applies mid'Oraisa only on the first day. On the other six days, the Mitzvah is only mid'Rabanan, commemorative of what is done in the Mikdash ('Zecher l'Mikdash'). The Rabanan did not require that all of the d'Oraisa requirements of Lulav be fulfilled outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash on the last six days of the festival. The requirement that a Lulav not be dry is not a requirement in the laws of <i>Lulav</i> itself, but it is a requirement based on the principle of 'v'Anvehu,' which is a general rule that applies to all Mitzvos, both d'Oraisa and d'Rabanan. Since it is a Mitzvah d'Rabanan to hold the Lulav on the last six days of Sukos, the Lulav must be 'Hadar' because of 'v'Anvehu.' In contrast, it does not need to be 'Lachem' (the property of the one who holds it, and not stolen property) because 'Lachem' is a specific requirement in the laws of Lulav, and the specific laws of Lulav do not apply during the last six days of Sukos (since the Mitzvah is only a commemorative act). This may be Rashi's source for his explanation that a dry Lulav is invalid because it does not fulfill the requirement of 'v'Anvehu' (see Insights to 29:3:a).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ba'inan) also explains that the Gemara is discussing the Mitzvah of Lulav outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash on the last six days of Sukos. The Rabanan were not stringent with the details of the Mitzvah of Lulav, as Rashi says, because the Mitzvah outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash was instituted only as a 'Zecher b'Alma,' a commemorative act. Why, though, were the Rabanan stringent with the requirement that a Lulav not be dry?
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that <i>l'Chatchilah</i>, an unsightly object certainly should not be used for a Mitzvah, because of the general principle of 'v'Anvehu.' Since 'v'Anvehu' provides a reason not to use a dry Lulav l'Chatchilah, the Rabanan considered the requirement of 'v'Anvehu' sufficient reason to enact that the Pesul of a dry Lulav, which applies on the first day (because of 'Hadar'), applies also on the last six days. They enacted that one hold the Lulav on the last six days, but they did <i>not</i> require that one fulfill all of the conditions that the Torah requires on the first day of Sukos. However, with regard to a dry Lulav, they enacted their Mitzvah d'Rabanan <i>k'Ein d'Oraisa</i>, similar to the Torah's requirement, because even without the Torah requirements for a Lulav, a dry Lulav should not be held l'Chatchilah for the Mitzvah. Therefore, a dry Lulav on all seven days is invalid.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> says that the Gemara is not discussing the Mitzvah outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, but rather the Mitzvah in the Beis ha'Mikdash itself. Even in the Beis ha'Mikdash, where the Mitzvah of Lulav is mid'Oraisa all seven days of Sukos, the Pesulim of Lulav -- including the Pesul of 'Lachem' -- apply only on the first day. The only exception is the Pesul of a dry Lulav, since that Pesul is learned from the verse, 'The dead cannot praise Hash-m' (Tehilim 115:17), which teaches that something which is dead cannot be used to praise Hash-m (see Insights to 29:3:c). A dried Lulav is invalid all seven days, because it is not fit to be used to praise Hash-m.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) and the <b>RITVA</b> explain (like the Ra'avad) that the Gemara is discussing the last six days of Sukos, <i>in</i> the Beis ha'Mikdash. Although the Pesul of a dry Lulav applies all seven days, the Rabanan understood that there is reason to be lenient with regard to the Pesul of 'Lachem' (a stolen or borrowed Lulav) on the last six days of Sukos in the Beis ha'Mikdash. That attribute of a Lulav (its status as stolen) is not something that changes the physical appearance of the Lulav. The Rabanan were lenient because the Torah itself was lenient with regard to the last six days of Sukos (the Torah did not require that the Lulav be held outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash on those six days). From the Torah's leniency, the Rabanan derived that where there are grounds to be lenient with the laws of Lulav, the Halachah follows that leniency during the last six days in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MITZVAH HABA'AH B'AVEIRAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Tana does not seem to differentiate between 
          the first and second days of Yom Tov regarding 
          a stolen Lulav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the Torah singles out the 
               first day for the obligation that the 
               Lulav belong to the user!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon b. 
               Yochai):</font></b> Because on all days it is a 
               Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Malachi connects the stolen offering 
                    with the lame and ill offering.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The defect of being stolen does not 
                    abate, just as the lame condition of 
                    the animal does not pass, even after 
                    the owner loses hope (Yiush).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Question:</font></b> While before Yiush we 
                    understand that the offering does not 
                    belong to the one bringing it; surely 
                    after Yiush it is his!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The invalidation must be 
                    Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> In a similar vein R. Shimon b. Yochai 
               interprets the Pasuk wherein Hash-m 
               despises theft in an Olah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why single out an Olah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is analogous to a King who 
                    pays taxes (which come right back to 
                    him) so that his servants will not 
                    learn to evade taxes; so, too, does 
                    Hash-m despise a stolen Olah, so that 
                    we might learn to avoid theft.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Ami teaches explicitly that the defect 
               of a stolen Lulav is Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah 
               b'Aveirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak citing Shmuel):</font></b> One <i>does</i> 
          fulfills one's obligation on the second day of 
          Sukos with a stolen Lulav (since a borrowed 
          Lulav may be used, so, too, a stolen Lulav).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But our Mishnah prohibits a 
               stolen Lulav and thus seems to permit a 
               borrowed Lulav!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This could not be speaking on the 
                    first day of Sukos, where the Torah 
                    says Lachem (and a borrowed Lulav 
                    does not qualify)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It must be speaking on subsequent 
                    days, and, still, a stolen Lulav is 
                    Pasul!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah is speaking on 
               the first day of Yom Tov.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah singles out a stolen 
                    Lulav not because a borrowed one is 
                    permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> To the contrary, we would naturally 
                    prohibit a borrowed one (which is not 
                    Lachem) but we might have permitted a 
                    stolen Lulav (by presuming that 
                    commonly the owners have lost hope).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>METHODS FOR CHANGING OWNERSHIP IN THEFT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Huna told the merchants to have the gentile 
          sellers cut the Hadasim (not the merchants).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why would this be necessary?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the gentile presumably stole the 
          property (perhaps from a Jew).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since property does not change ownership 
               by theft it may still belong to a Jew.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MITZVAH HA'BA'AH B'AVEIRAH' </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan teaches that a stolen Lulav may not be used during Sukos because of the principle, 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' However, the Gemara elsewhere derives from a different source that a stolen object may not be used for a Mitzvah. The Gemara earlier (9a) derives from the word 'Lach' (Devarim 22:12) that one may not fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis with a stolen garment. Similarly, the Gemara earlier (27b) derives from 'Lecha' (Devarim 16:13) that one may not sit in a stolen Sukah.
</p><p>
When is the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' enough to teach that a stolen object may not be used for a Mitzvah, and when is a verse (such as 'Lecha') necessary? (<b>TOSFOS</b> 9a, DH ha'Hu)
</p><p>
To answer this question, it is necessary to review what exactly constitutes a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' There are a number of opinions in the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BA'ALEI HA'TOSFOS</b> cited by the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> (31a), and <b>TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ</b> and <b>TOSFOS SHANTZ</b> (in Pesachim 35b) explain that the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only to an object which serves to be 'Meratzeh Hash-m' (to arouse the goodwill of Hash-m to forgive a person for his misdeeds) or to praise Hash-m. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara applies the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' in only three cases:
</p><p>
1. A stolen animal that is brought as a Korban is invalid. A Korban is brought to be Meratzeh Hash-m.
</p><p>
2. A stolen Lulav is invalid, because a Lulav is used to be Meratzeh and praise Hash-m. (See Rashi to Sukah 36b, DH Ela l'Rav.)
</p><p>
3. A Shofar that is Asur b'Hana'ah may not be used, because of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' (Rosh Hashanah 28a, according to some Rishonim). The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 26a) says that the sounding of the Shofar is Meratzeh Hash-m.
</p><p>
Only when the objective of the Mitzvah is to be Meratzeh Hash-m does the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' apply, but not for any other Mitzvah. Since the Mitzvos of Tzitzis and Sukah were not given for the purpose of being Meratzeh Hash-m, a separate verse is required to teach that stolen Tzitzis and stolen Sechach are invalid.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> here (and in Pesachim 35b and Rosh Hashanah 28a) proves from the Yerushalmi that the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only when the fulfillment of the Mitzvah itself <i>causes</i> one to transgress an Aveirah.
</p><p>
For example, when one consecrates someone else's animal as a Korban, or he designates someone else's branch as a Lulav, he acquires the object through a 'Shinuy ha'Shem,' a change in the name of the object (from 'animal' to 'Korban,' or from 'branch' to 'Lulav'), and he thereby transgresses the Isur of stealing. The very act of making the object into one of a Mitzvah was what 'stole' the object. Had no Mitzvah been done, the Aveirah would not have been committed. In such a case, the Torah teaches that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah, in order that he not transgress the Aveirah. This is what the Gemara refers to as a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.'
</p><p>
In contrast, when one happens to transgress an Aveirah simultaneously with the fulfillment of a Mitzvah, it is not considered a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' For example, when one eats Matzah of Tevel, the Aveirah that he commits is unrelated to the Mitzvah. Even if he would <i>not</i> fulfill the Mitzvah when he eats the Matzah of Tevel, he would still transgress the Isur of eating Tevel. Since the Mitzvah does not play a role in the transgression of the Aveirah (which he would transgress by eating the Tevel regardless of whether he fulfills a Mitzvah), the rule of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' does not apply.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> concludes that the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' does <i>not</i> have the status of a Torah principle, because it is derived not from a verse in the Torah but from a verse in Malachi, as the Gemara here teaches. It is considered a principle derived from 'Divrei Kabalah.' The Rabanan have the authority to decree that if one fulfills a Mitzvah as a result of an Aveirah that he committed, he must perform the Mitzvah again. The Mitzvah mid'Oraisa, though, has been performed properly. When a specific verse teaches that a stolen object may not be used for that particular Mitzvah, it teaches that even mid'Oraisa one does not fulfill the Mitzvah with the stolen object. (The Ramban's disciple, <b>RABEINU DAVID</b>, also gives this explanation.) This is also the conclusion of Tosfos (9a, DH ha'Hu), and this may be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> in Pesachim as well (see Insights to Pesachim 35:2:d).
</p><p>
Accordingly, the verse is necessary to teach that a stolen Sukah or stolen Tzitzis is not valid mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THEFT FROM A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Huna instructed the Jewish retail agents ('Avankeri'), who buy Hadas branches from Nochri wholesalers in order to sell them to other Jews for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, that they should not pick the branches themselves but should have the Nochri wholesalers pick them.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Karka) explains that the reason why the Jewish agent should not cut the Hadas himself is because Nochrim frequently steal land from Jews, and it is possible that the field from which this Hadas came was stolen from a Jew. Therefore, in case the field belonged to a Jew, the Jewish agent should not cut (and inadvertently steal) the Hadas branch, but he should let the Nochri do the act of stealing the Hadas.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that the land might have belonged to a Jew? Even if it was stolen from a Nochri, a Jew is forbidden to steal from him, and the Hadas will not meet the criterion of 'Lachem.' In fact, it is Rav Huna himself who teaches that a Jew is forbidden to steal from Nochrim (Bava Kama 113b). (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>, <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>, and others)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (CM 348:1) posits that according to the <b>REMA</b> (EH 28:1), even though there is an Isur d'Oraisa against stealing from a Nochri, there is no obligation mid'Oraisa to return the stolen object (Chiyuv Hashavah). The obligation to return the object is mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan enacted that the object be returned in order to prevent Chilul Hash-m.
</p><p>
(The Gemara in Bava Kama (113b) explains that even if the Torah forbids a Jew from stealing from a Nochri, that prohibition forbids only actively stealing from a Nochri. It does not forbid a passive form of theft, such as defaulting on a loan that one owes to the Nochri, or not returning a lost object of a Nochri that one finds. In those cases, one is required to return the Nochri's property due to a decree of the Rabanan that was instituted to prevent Chilul Hash-m. Similarly, <b>RASHI</b> in Sanhedrin (57a, DH Yisrael b'Kuti) writes that the prohibition against withholding the wages of a worker is only mid'Rabanan, due to the concern of Chilul Hash-m. The Nesivos takes this a step further when he suggests that the Torah does not obligate one to return an object to a Nochri, even if it is still intact.)
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Sukah 5:25) suggests that, according to this view, since there is no Chiyuv Hashavah (even if the object is still intact), the thief acquires it as soon as the Nochri despairs ('Ye'ush') of ever recovering it. After this point, even if the Nochri would reclaim the object on his own, he would have to return it to the thief. A physical change in the object (Shinuy) is not necessary, just as a change in the object is not necessary in order for one to acquire a lost object of a Jew through the original owner's despair of recovering his object. The obligation to return a stolen object is what prevents the thief from acquiring it through Ye'ush alone.
</p><p>
After one acquires a stolen object, he may use it for a Mitzvah, and it is no longer subject to the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' Since the Gemara (30b) says that it is necessary to have a Shinuy, in addition to Ye'ush, in order to acquire the Hadas, the Gemara must be referring to a Hadas stolen from a Jew, because an object stolen from a Nochri needs only Ye'ush in order for one to acquire it. (The Or Same'ach writes this in accordance with the opinion of Tosfos, cited above in Insights to 30:1:c. It is not clear how this explains the view of Rashi, who maintains that the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies to a stolen object even after the thief has acquired it; see following Insight. Perhaps Rashi agrees with Tosfos in a case such as this one, in which the theft and the acquisition of the object occur simultaneously, since Ye'ush preceded the act of Gezeilah.)
</p><p>
(The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (CM 348:2) argues with the Nesivos' assertion that there is no obligation, mid'Oraisa, to return an object stolen from a Nochri. He cites a Tosefta (Bava Kama 10:8) that clearly states that one who steals from a Nochri must return the stolen property. The Tosefta implies that the obligation is mid'Oraisa, like the obligation to return an object stolen from a Jew.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) assumes that the Gemara refers to a Hadas stolen from a Jew. He writes that a Mitzvah performed with a Hadas stolen from a Nochri is not a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' Apparently, the Ramban understands that the Gemara here follows the opinion (in Bava Kama 113a) that 'Gezel Akum' is permitted.
</p><p>
The Ramban's approach is difficult to understand. The ruling of the Gemara here was made by Rav Huna, but in Bava Kama it was Rav Huna himself who said that 'Gezel Akum' is prohibited (as we mentioned in the question)! Apparently, the Ramban had a variant Girsa in the Gemara here. According to his Girsa, it was not Rav Huna but another Amora who made this statement. Indeed, in some texts of the Gemara it is Rava, and not Rav Huna, who made this statement. (See, for example, the Gemara as quoted by the <b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA</b> 1:968 and <b>RITVA</b> in Gitin 55a. This emendation must be made in the words of the Milchamos here as well.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi's text of the Gemara also read 'Rava' and not 'Rav Huna,' and that is why Rashi explains that the Gemara is not discussing a field stolen from a Nochri. Rashi wants to avoid having Rava maintain that 'Gezel Akum' is prohibited. For that reason, Rashi says that the Gemara is not discussing a field stolen from a Nochri, because if it was stolen from a Nochri, there would be no reason to prevent the Avankeri from picking the Hadas and using it for the Mitzvah. (Indeed, the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> here (footnote 90) cites old manuscripts in which the text of Rashi (DH v'Karka) reads that <i>Rava</i> said this statement.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Having the gentile clip the Hadasim 
               results in the permitted combination of 
               Yiush and change of ownership [Shinui 
               Reshus].
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Thus the Yiush takes place in the hands of 
               the gentile, and the Shinui Reshus is into 
               the hands of the merchant.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It should be sufficient that the 
          Yiush takes place as it is clipped by the 
          merchant, and the Shinui Reshus takes place 
          into the hands of the buyer!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, R. Huna was speaking to the 
          merchants about acquiring their own Hadasim 
          from the gentile.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let Shinui Ma'aseh be sufficient 
          (tying together of the Minim)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Huna does not require that they be 
          bound (and even if he does, such a binding does 
          not create Shinui Ma'aseh since it can be 
          readily undone).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let Shinui Hash-m be sufficient (it 
          was called a Asa [Hadas] and it is now 
          Hoshana)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was commonly called Hoshana even 
          before it was tied together with the Minim.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) BUYING A HADAS BRANCH FROM A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Huna instructed the Jewish retail agents ('Avankeri'), who buy Hadas branches from Nochri wholesalers in order to sell them to other Jews for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, that they should not pick the branches themselves but should have the Nochri wholesalers pick them. <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Karka) explains that the reason why the Jewish agent should not cut the Hadas himself is because Nochrim frequently steal land from Jews, and it is possible that the field from which this Hadas came was stolen from a Jew. Therefore, in case the field belonged to a Jew, the Jewish agent should not cut (and inadvertently steal) the Hadas branch, but he should let the Nochri do the act of stealing the Hadas.
</p><p>
However, if the Hadas is a stolen one, then what difference does it make if the Jew did not actually steal it? When he uses the Hadas for the Mitzvah, he performs the Mitzvah with a stolen object. Why is it not a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah'?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (30a, DH Ha) understands that when a Jew receives the Hadas, two things occur -- 'Ye'ush' and 'Shinuy Reshus.' As a result of these two stages, the impression of Gezeilah is no longer upon the object, and when it is used for a Mitzvah it is not a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' Once a person acquires the object, 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' does not apply.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Karka), however, seems to take a different approach. Rashi writes that the Gemara's teaching (that the Jewish agent should not cut the Hadas himself) applies even according to the opinion that one acquires a stolen object through Ye'ush. Even though the agent would acquire the Hadas when he cuts it, he should not cut the Hadas because he will be stealing. When he later uses it for the Mitzvah (even after Ye'ush of the original owner, at which point he acquires the stolen object), the act will <i>still</i> be a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' Rashi clearly disagrees with Tosfos and says that even after one acquires the object and it belongs to him completely, he still may not perform a Mitzvah with it, for 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' still applies.
</p><p>
Rashi's opinion is difficult to understand for a number of reasons.
</p><p>
(a) If it is true that the Jewish agent who cuts the Hadas from the Nochri's field commits Gezeilah if the land really belongs to a Jew, and as a result he may not use that Hadas for a Mitzvah, then why does the Gemara suggest that the agent himself could cut it and acquire it with 'Shinuy Ma'aseh' or 'Shinuy ha'Shem'? At the moment that he cuts it he commits an Aveirah of Gezeilah; he should be prohibited from cutting the Hadas because of the prohibition against stealing! Similarly, why does the Gemara suggest that the agent could cut it and give it to a customer, who will then acquire the Hadas through 'Shinuy Reshus'? While that method enables the customer to use the Hadas, it still does not permit the agent to cut it -- he still steals when he cuts the Hadas! How can the Gemara permit him to do an Aveirah? (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Even if the Nochri cuts it and then gives it to the Avankeri, the Avankeri should still be considered as though he is stealing the Hadas. Since the Gemara maintains that one does not acquire the stolen object through Ye'ush, the Kinyan (change of possession) of the Hadas occurs only at the time that the Avankeri buys it from the Nochri. When he buys the Hadas, the Avankeri removes the Hadas from the possession of the original owner. Consequently, the Avankeri is still stealing, and he should not be able to use the Hadas for the Mitzvah because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.'
</p><p>
(This question is difficult only according to Rashi's opinion that even after one has acquired the item the problem of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' still applies. According to the opinion of Tosfos, once the Aveirah has been committed and the person has acquired the object, it is no longer considered a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.')
</p><p>
(c) If 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies even after one acquires the object as Rashi implies, then why does the Gemara say that the agent should be able to do the Mitzvah because he acquires the Hadas through 'Shinuy Ma'aseh' or 'Shinuy ha'Shem'? Even if there is a Shinuy, he still should not be permitted to use the item for a Mitzvah because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(d) Why does Rashi attempt to explain the Gemara according to the opinion that one acquires a stolen object through Ye'ush alone? The Gemara clearly says that when a Nochri cuts the Hadas, the original owner has Ye'ush when the Hadas is in the Nochri's hands, and a Shinuy Reshus occurs when the Hadas enters the hands of the Jewish agent. The fact that the Gemara says that <i>both</i> are necessary clearly implies that one does not acquire a stolen object through Ye'ush alone, but a Shinuy (change) in the object is also needed. (If Ye'ush alone works, then the Gemara should say simply that the Nochri should cut the Hadas and not the Jewish agent, so that the Jew does not do an Aveirah.) The Gemara clearly follows the opinion that one does <i>not</i> acquire an object through Ye'ush alone. Why, then, does Rashi explain the Gemara according to the opinion that one acquires through Ye'ush?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) When the Gemara suggests that the Jewish agent should cut the Hadas and acquire it through a 'Shinuy Ma'aseh' or 'Shinuy ha'Shem,' the Gemara is not bothered by the fact that the Jew might be stealing. Since the Nochri is in possession of the field, his Chazakah enables us to assume that it belongs to him. Even though it is true that many Nochrim steal land from Jews, we do not assume that this land was stolen, because the Nochri is the 'Machzik' (and if anyone has a claim against him, the burden of proof is on the claimant -- 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah').
</p><p>
However, with regard to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, we <i>do</i> take into account the possibility that the Hadas was cut from stolen land. Since it is a question of the fulfillment of a Mitzvah, the concern that the object was stolen must be taken into account. Hence, even though a doubt with regard to monetary laws (Safek Dinei Mamonos) is governed by the normal rules of such a doubt (we assume that the Machzik is the owner until proven otherwise and we apply 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah'), with regard to a doubt in the laws of Isur v'Heter (there is a doubt whether one fulfills the Mitzvah or not) we apply the laws of a Safek Isur (and Safek Isur <i>l'Chumra</i>; see Bava Basra 81b).
</p><p>
(The difference between the issue of whether one is considered to have stolen an object and the issue of whether one is considered to have fulfilled a Mitzvah with the object can be expressed in other ways. For example, while a doubt with regard to monetary laws (Gezeilah) is governed by the normal rules of such a doubt (Chazakah, Rov, etc.), the Rabanan did not want to rely on those laws with regard to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. They wanted the Mitzvah to be fulfilled in the best way possible. Therefore, even though, m'Ikar ha'Din, one may rely on the Chazakah that the land is probably not stolen, if there is some way to avoid the possibility that it is stolen, then one should avoid it in order to fulfill the Mitzvah in the best way possible. The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests a similar approach.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Gemara is not concerned with the possibility that the agent will be stealing from a Jew if he cuts the Hadas branch. With regard to the doubt in monetary law (who owns the field), the Chazakah tells us that the field belongs to the Nochri and not to a Jew. The only concern is the doubt that one will perform a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' with the branch.
</p><p>
(b) Even if the Gemara's focus is only on the issue of the proper fulfillment of the Mitzvah, why does the Gemara assume that if the Jewish agent acquires the Hadas through Shinuy Reshus, then it is not a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah'? According to Rashi, who says that 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies even after one acquires the object, even if one acquires it through Shinuy Reshus he still commits an Aveirah of Gezeilah when he makes a Kinyan on an object that is not his (or the seller's), and thus the Mitzvah he performs with the object is still a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah'!
</p><p>
The answer to this question is that Rashi follows his own opinion as expressed in many places in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 26b, Sanhedrin 2a, Sanhedrin 57a, Yoma 74a, Rosh Hashanah 22a, and elsewhere). Rashi writes that, mid'Oraisa, one transgresses the prohibition of Gezeilah only when he seizes the object directly from the grasp of the owner (or from the owner's property). In contrast, if one takes the object after it has already been removed from the owner's property (for example, the owner lent it to his friend, and his friend decided to keep it, or the owner lost it in Reshus ha'Rabim and the finder decided to keep it), he does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of Gezeilah.
</p><p>
In the case of the Gemara here, the object that might have been stolen is presently in the hands of the Nochri and no longer in the possession of the original owner. When the agent takes it from the Nochri, he does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of Gezeilah. Although one is prohibited mid'Rabanan from stealing in such a manner, the transgression of an Isur d'Rabanan does not impede the performance of a Mitzvah because of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' (Why, though, is the Jewish agent permitted to take the object from the Nochri, if there is a chance that he is stealing from another Jew? As we explained earlier, out of doubt we are not concerned that an act of Gezeilah is being done.)
</p><p>
However, in a case in which the Jewish agent picks the Hadas and then sells it to another Jew, why is the Mitzvah not considered a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' for the second Jew who buys it from the agent? It is possible that the agent committed a serious transgression of Gezeilah d'Oraisa when he picked the Hadas directly from the property of another Jew, and thus any Mitzvah performed with that object should be a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.'
</p><p>
It must be that Rashi maintains that 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only to the person who committed the Aveirah. If one person acquired the object through an Aveirah, and another person used that object to do a Mitzvah, there is no problem of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.' (This is implied by Rashi at the beginning of 30a, where he writes that 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' means that one may not fulfill a Mitzvah that is accomplished by an Aveirah that he commits.) On the other hand, the Jew <i>does</i> need to be concerned about the requirement of 'Lachem' (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, he must own the Hadas); he must make a Kinyan on the object so that it belongs to him. That problem is solved by the Kinyan of Shinuy Reshus, which makes the Hadas belong to him ('Lachem'). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that even though Rashi says that 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies after Ye'ush according to the opinion that one acquires an object with Ye'ush alone, nevertheless after one acquires the object through Ye'ush <i>and</i> Shinuy Ma'aseh or Shinuy ha'Shem, the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' no longer applies.
</p><p>
The simplest way to understand this assertion is that when there is a second step of Kinyan done with the object, the object becomes far removed from the original act of Gezeilah, and thus 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' does not apply.
</p><p>
An alternative way to understand the Maharsha's answer is that when there is Shinuy Ma'aseh or Shinuy ha'Shem, the object itself has been altered. In such a case, it is considered like an entirely new object, and it is not the same object that was stolen. It is not that the Shinuy makes the object so far removed from the act of Gezeilah that the Mitzvah that is done with the object is not considered a Mitzvah done as a result of an Aveirah, but rather it makes the object like a new object altogether. (<b>CHASAM SOFER</b>, <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>
This way of understanding does not explain why a Shinuy <i>Reshus</i> solves the problem of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah,' because nothing in the object changes in the case of a Shinuy Reshus (rather, only the hands that are holding it have changed). However, as explained earlier, the reason why Shinuy Reshus avoids the problem of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' is because the principle of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only to the person who stole the object.
</p><p>
(d) Perhaps Rashi maintains that the Halachah is that one <i>does</i> acquire an object with Ye'ush alone. Accordingly, Rashi prefers that the Gemara here follow the opinion which is the Halachic ruling and not follow the opinion of just a few Amora'im. Thus, Rashi explains that when the Gemara says that the Nochri should pick the Hadas, it follows both opinions -- the opinion that one acquires the object with Ye'ush alone, and the opinion that one acquires the object only with Ye'ush and a Shinuy. Even if Ye'ush alone does not work, after the Nochri picks the Hadas the Jewish agent acquires it because there is a Shinuy Reshus, and thus the agent can fulfill the Mitzvah with the Hadas (because it qualifies as 'Lachem'). This explains why the Gemara adds the element of Shinuy Reshus; the Gemara wants to explain why the Jewish agent may use the Hadas according to the opinion that one does not acquire the object with Ye'ush alone. The Gemara also means that even if one <i>does</i> acquire through Ye'ush, the agent must still have the Nochri pick the Hadas so that the agent does not commit a possible transgression of Gezeilah (even though it will be considered 'Lachem' even if he picks it, because Ye'ush suffices to be Koneh).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A STOLEN SUKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> A stolen Sukah and one made in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim are Pesulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> They are Kesheirim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Nachman):</font></b> Their dispute (in a case where 
          Reuven forced Shimon out of his Sukah) is over 
          whether a person may be Yotzei with another 
          person's Sukah (Chachamim) or not (R. Eliezer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The position of R. Eliezer.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If land can be stolen, then this is a 
                    stolen Sukah (which R. Eliezer on 27b 
                    has taught is not Kesheirah).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If land cannot be stolen then this is 
                    as borrowed, and, again, is Pesulah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The position of Chachamim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Land cannot be stolen, so this Sukah 
                    is still the property of its original 
                    owner.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> One may be Yotzei with a borrowed 
                    Sukah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If wood was stolen and used for Sechach, 
               the thief must pay for the wood (we do not 
               obligate the thief to return the wood 
               itself and the Sukah is Kesheirah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for permitting the 
          Sukah with stolen Sechach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because the Mishnah listed the stolen 
          Sukah together with one built in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, to prohibit a Sukah which is not on 
          his property (but stolen wood, where the 
          property is his, does not impede his being 
          Yotzei).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  In the reported incident, R. Nachman insisted 
          (over her intense cries) that the woman was 
          entitled only to the cost of the stolen 
          Sechach, and not to the Sechach itself (and the 
          Sukah is Kesheirah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TAKANAS HA'SHAVIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (Ravina) The protection given to a thief in 
          order to encourage him to repent is extended to 
          the beam of a Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely allowing him to leave the beam 
          in place is not more newsworthy than the 
          Sechach which R. Nachman just permitted!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might not have made the extension 
          from Sechach (which is readily available) to a 
          beam (which is hard to find, and we might have 
          obligated the thief to dismantle his Sukah to 
          return it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  After Sukos, the thief must return the beam, 
          since this temporary structure does not 
          engender great expense in being dismantled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If, however, he cemented the beam into the 
          ground then, again, he is obligated in its 
          value, not in the beam.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'HADAR' BY THE LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> A dried out Lulav is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> While they argue whether a Lulav needs 
          Hadar as does an Esrog, they agree that an 
          Esrog must be Hadar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see in the Mishnah, where R. 
          Yehudah requires that he tie the loose ends of 
          the Lulav leaves together that he <i>does</i> demand 
          Hadar for an Esrog!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The reason for that requirement is to 
          create a singular leaf, as alluded to in the 
          Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find that R. Yehudah requires 
          that the Minim be bound together with its own 
          species, surely for the sake of Hadar!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Its own species is not required (as 
          taught by Rava) but R. Yehudah's requirement 
          stems from the obligation to bind the Lulav, 
          thus making the binding a potential fifth 
          species.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'HADAR' BY THE ESROG</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We see that R. Yehudah does not 
          require the Esrog to be Hadar!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> While he does not allow fewer nor more 
               species other than the four specified, and 
               no other substitute fruits in the event 
               that no Esrog is available;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Somewhat dried (Kemushin) Minim are 
               Kosher, but dried out ones are not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah allows one which is dried out 
               (not Hadar) in that case, and cites an 
               incident to support his ruling (where 
               fathers passed their Lulavim on to their 
               sons).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HOW TO STEAL A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that according to the Rabanan, one who steals a Sukah (by pushing its owner out) or builds a Sukah in Reshus ha'Rabim is permitted to use that Sukah. The Rabanan maintain that land cannot be stolen ('Karka Einah Nigzeles'), and thus the Sukah is not considered a stolen Sukah. In addition, if one steals wood and builds it into his Sukah, he may also use that Sukah even though it is built of stolen materials. Since he effected a change in the object that he stole ('Shinuy Ma'aseh' or 'Shinuy ha'Shem'), he acquired the wood that he stole and fulfills the Mitzvah with this Sukah. Alternatively, the enactment of 'Takanas ha'Shavim' puts the wood into his possession (the Rabanan made this enactment in order to exempt a person from the obligation to return the actual object that he stole and built into his house, in order to make it easier for him to repent).
</p><p>
The Rabanan (27b) derive from the verse that a stolen Sukah is invalid. <b>RASHI</b> here asks what case the Rabanan refer to when they teach that a stolen Sukah is invalid. In every case of a stolen Sukah, the Sukah either becomes the property of the thief or it cannot be stolen in the first place, and the thief therefore fulfills the Mitzvah in that Sukah.
</p><p>
Rashi answers that the only case of a stolen Sukah which is invalid is a Sukah that is built upon a boat or an animal (a portable Sukah). Such a Sukah can be stolen as one whole unit from the ground on which it stands. There is no Shinuy Ma'aseh or Shinuy ha'Shem in such a case (because nothing in the stolen object has changed), and 'Takanas ha'Shavim' does not apply (because the thief did not exert considerable effort into constructing a Sukah, as it was a Sukah already at the time he stole it). Since it is not land, it <i>can</i> be stolen.
</p><p>
Rashi's case includes the theft of any fully-built Sukah that is not attached to the ground. For example, if Reuven builds a Sukah in Shimon's courtyard and the Sukah is not attached to the ground, and Shimon throws him out of his Sukah, Shimon has committed a theft. As a result, the Sukah is considered stolen and Shimon cannot fulfill the Mitzvah with it. (The reason why Rashi mentions only a Sukah on a wagon is because that is the most common case of a stolen Sukah.)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Aval) suggests that there <i>is</i> a case of a stolen Sukah in which the Sukah is attached to the ground. If Reuven builds a Sukah on Shimon's land and attaches it to the ground, and then Shimon throws Reuven out of the Sukah, the Sukah is considered stolen and Shimon cannot fulfill the Mitzvah with it. Why, though, is this Sukah, which is attached to the land, not considered like land itself which cannot be stolen?
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the reason land cannot be stolen is because it is 'b'Chezkas Ba'aleha' -- land cannot be removed from the owner's property (because it <i>is</i> his property), and thus the act of stealing land does not effect a Kinyan. In the case of a stolen Sukah, the land beneath the Sukah is Shimon's land; if Shimon throws Reuven out, he successfully 'steals' the Sukah, because it is outside of Reuven's property (the land on which the Sukah is built is not Reuven's). 
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not give this case of a Sukah Gezulah, a stolen Sukah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> asks a strong question on Tosfos' case of a stolen Sukah. According to Tosfos, there seems to be no source in the Torah for the principle that 'land cannot be stolen' ('Karka Einah Nigzeles'). Rather, it is merely the physical impossibility that precludes theft of land. Land cannot be picked up and placed in somebody else's domain.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, what does the Gemara in Bava Kama (117b) mean when it says that there is no theft of Avadim (slaves), because a verse compares Avadim to land? There <i>is</i>, in theory, theft of land; it is just that <i>practically</i> there is no way to steal it (if a way to steal land -- such as in the case of Tosfos -- would be found, then indeed land could be stolen). Since, in practice, there <i>is</i> a way to steal Avadim, the law of theft should apply to Avadim!
</p><p>
Moreover, we may ask that the Gemara there in Bava Kama quotes the Chachamim who derive from a verse that the law of Gezeilah does not apply to land ('land cannot be stolen'). From the same verse, they derive that there is no Gezeilah of contracts (Shtaros). Although Shtaros certainly can be stolen in practice, the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv excludes them from the law of Gezeilah. Why, then, does Tosfos say that land is different, and that the reason why it cannot be stolen is because it is not <i>practically</i> possible to steal land? It is clear from the Gemara there that the reason why land cannot be stolen is not because of the practical impossibility, but because of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. (Consequently, in Tosfos' case, the Sukah should <i>not</i> be considered stolen, because land cannot be stolen.)
</p><p>
Also, if the reason why the law of Gezeilah does not apply to land is because, practically, it is impossible to steal it, then what does Rebbi Eliezer in Bava Kama mean when he says that land <i>can</i> be stolen? If land cannot be stolen because of the practical impossibility, then how can there be an opinion that land can be stolen ('Karka Nigzeles')?
</p><p>
Tosfos expresses his view about the impossibility of stealing land in many places. In each place, Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks similar questions (see, for example, Bava Metzia 61a, Tosfos DH Ela). The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (Bava Metzia ibid.) answers these questions. He explains that Tosfos means that there are two parts to the prohibition of Gezeilah. The first part is the prohibition (the Lav) of 'Lo Tigzol' -- 'Do not steal.' The second part of Gezeilah is the Kinyan created by the act of Gezeilah. When a person steals an item, a certain type of Kinyan takes effect which obligates him to return the stolen object, or to pay for it if it becomes lost or damaged. The Kinyan may also cause the thief to acquire it through Ye'ush, through making a Shinuy in the object, or by giving it to another person.
</p><p>
Tosfos maintains that the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (mentioned in Bava Kama) refers only to the Kinyanim effected by Gezeilah. That is, if a person steals land, those Kinyanim do not apply. Consequently, if a river overflows and washes away the soil of the stolen field, the thief does not have to pay the owner for the loss (according to the Chachamim there who maintain 'Karka Einah Nigzeles'). No Kinyan can be made on a stolen field which would obligate the thief to pay. Even if the thief performs an act of Chazakah (such as digging) on the field, that does not effect a Kinyan; the field is not considered stolen and the thief has no responsibilities towards that land. (The verse from which the Chachamim in Bava Kama derive that land cannot be stolen refers to the obligations created by the Kinyan of Gezeilah.)
</p><p>
However, with regard to the Lav of 'Lo Tigzol,' if a person finds a practical way to steal land, he will transgress the prohibition against stealing. (The physical act of stealing is defined as the removal of an object from the property of its owner.) However, as mentioned above, the thief will not be obligated to compensate the owner if the land is destroyed, because the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that he makes no Kinyan Gezeilah on land. That is why Tosfos says that there <i>is</i> Gezeilah for land with regard to whether or not it is considered a 'Sukah Gezulah' (such as in the case of the Sukah that Reuven built on Shimon's land). The Gezeiras ha'Kasuv does not address the applicability of the Lav of 'Lo Tigzol' to land. Similarly, if one steals Avadim, he also transgresses the Lav of 'Lo Tigzol' but he does not become obligated by the responsibilities created by the Kinyanim of Gezeilah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Eliezer (in Bava Kama), who says that land can be stolen ('Karka Nigzeles'), maintains that if one makes a Kinyan by performing an act of Chazakah on someone else's land, such a Kinyan is also able to effect Gezeilah. It will obligate the thief to return the land if it is damaged by a flood, and it will cause the property to become the thief's through Ye'ush and Shinuy. A Chazakah works to create the Kinyanim of Gezeilah, and thus it also works to make the thief liable for 'Lo Tigzol.' (The Chazakah removes the land from the property of its owner by causing it to be the thief's property through Ye'ush and Shinuy.)
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> (Sukah 1:2) points out that the Pnei Yehoshua's explanation for Tosfos in Bava Kama also answers the question of Rebbi Akiva Eiger on Tosfos here. Tosfos does not mean that one can make Kinyanei Gezeilah on someone else's Sukah that is built on his land. Rather, Tosfos means only that he transgresses the Lav of 'Lo Tigzol' and thus the Sukah is considered a stolen Sukah. The thief will not be able to use the Sukah for a Mitzvah, both because it is not his ('Lachem'), and because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' (see Tosfos 9a, DH ha'Hu).
</p><p>
This explains why Rashi does not mention Tosfos' case of a stolen Sukah. Perhaps Rashi maintains that the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches that land cannot be stolen applies not only to the Kinyanim of Gezeilah, but also to the Lav of Gezeilah. Therefore, if Shimon throws Reuven out of the Sukah that Reuven built on Shimon's land, Shimon does <i>not</i> transgress 'Lo Tigzol,' and the Sukah is not considered a stolen Sukah (just as stolen land is not considered stolen). This is why Rashi does not mention this case as an example of a stolen Sukah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> His proof is rejected since we cannot 
               bring a proof from times of need.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But he said that a dried Esrog is 
          Kosher!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He was referring to a dried Lulav (as 
          indicated by the cited incident which spoke of 
          a Lulav).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Surely it is obvious that one may not 
          add to the Minim (Bal Tosif)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have permitted another Min 
          which was not bound together with the other 
          three, given that the binding is obligatory, 
          this other Min might be viewed as entirely 
          separate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is it not obvious that he may not 
          substitute other fruits for the Esrog!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have permitted its inclusion 
          so that the concept of Esrog would not be 
          forgotten (but we forbid this due to our 
          concern that the proper law might then become 
          forgotten).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (on Rava who asserts that R. Yehudah 
          requires an Esrog to be Hadar):</font></b> But we see in 
          the Beraisa that R. Yehudah permits an old 
          Esrog!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This indeed refutes Rava.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see that R. Yehudah forbids an 
          intensely green Esrog, surely because it is not 
          Hadar!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is unfinished in its unripe state, 
          and hence not fit for use (not due to Hadar).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see that R. Yehudah requires 
          that it be KeBEtzah in size, surely for Hadar!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is, again, invalid owing to its 
          unfinished state.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see that R. Yehudah restricts 
          the size of a large Esrog (to half the size of 
          a person's capacity to hold), surely because 
          the smaller one is more Hadar!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The large one is invalid because of the 
          logistics involved in handling the Lulav and 
          Esrog (and safely switching hands with them) 
          not due to Hadar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then why, according to R. Yehudah, 
          does the Pasuk use the word Hadar when speaking 
          of the Esrog!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It refers to a fruit which resides 
          (haDar) on the tree from year to year (an 
          ability of an Esrog).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>LULAV FROM AN 'ASHEIRAH' IS 'PASUL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Rava allows (b'Di'eved) a Lulav 
          from Avodah Zara!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is speaking of a tree which 
          must be burned, which reduces its size, 
          Halachically, to zero (as indicated by the 
          juxtaposition of Asheirah in the Mishnah to the 
          case of the Ir ha'Nidachas, which we know must 
          be destroyed).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A LULAV OF AVODAH ZARAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rava rules that one should not use a Lulav of Avodah Zarah for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, but b'Di'eved he fulfills his obligation with it. The Gemara challenges Rava's ruling from the Mishnah (29b) that states that one may not use a Lulav of an Asheirah tree, even b'Di'eved. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers specifically to 'Asheirah d'Moshe' (see Background to the Daf).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that when Rava says that one may not use a Lulav of Avodah Zarah l'Chatchilah, he refers to a Lulav 'which was used to serve the Avodah Zarah' ('Meshamshei Avodah Zarah'), such as to sweep and clean the ground in front of it, or to a Lulav which is thrown at the Avodah Zarah as part of the sacramental ritual (presumably Rashi refers to a Lulav of 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah'). The Mishnah, though, refers to an 'Asheirah d'Moshe,' which, Rashi explains, refers to the Asheiros in Eretz Yisrael at the time the Jewish people entered the land. Those Asheiros had to be burned even though they belonged to Nochrim. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah says that even though the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri can become Batel (that is, if the Nochri does a denigrating act with it, such as breaking it or abusing it, the Avodah Zarah becomes permitted for use and is no longer Asur b'Hana'ah), the Avodah Zarah of the Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael at the time the Jews entered the land could not be become Batel. Therefore, a Lulav from such an Asheirah tree may not be used, even b'Di'eved. 
</p><p>
There are several difficulties with Rashi's explanation here.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi explain that the type of Lulav of Avodah Zarah to which Rava refers (when he says that one should not use it l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved one may use it) is a Lulav of 'Meshamshei' or 'Tikroves' of Avodah Zarah? Perhaps Rava refers to <i>any</i> type of Lulav of Avodah Zarah, even a Lulav which was actually worshipped as an idol (which became Asur b'Hana'ah just like the Asheirah mentioned in the Mishnah).
</p><p>
It is clear why Rashi does not explain that Rava refers to a Lulav which a <i>Jew</i> worshipped. Such a Lulav certainly is not valid for the Mitzvah, because it must be burned, and the principle of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' teaches that any object that must be burned is considered already burned and reduced to ashes, and consequently it does not have the minimum size necessary for the Mitzvah. Why, though, does Rashi not explain simply that Rava refers to a Lulav which a Nochri worshipped? Since it is not an 'Asheirah d'Moshe,' the rule of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' should not apply, because it is possible that the Nochri will be Mevatel the object's status as Avodah Zarah and make it permitted. Why does Rashi choose to explain that Rava refers specifically to 'Meshamshei' or 'Tikroves' of Avodah Zarah?
</p><p>
(b) Rashi explains that 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not apply to 'Meshamshei' and 'Tikroves' of Avodah Zarah, because those items do not have to be burned. The simple understanding of this is that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (51b) says that 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' do not have to be burned, but rather they may be buried. 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies only to an object which must be <i>burned</i>, but not to an object which may be buried. Moreover, since the actual object of Avodah Zarah of a Nochri can be annulled and become permitted, certainly the 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' can be annulled and need not be burned.
</p><p>
However, 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah' <i>do</i> need to be burned and cannot become Batel, and the rule of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' certainly applies to it (Yevamos 103b). Why, then, does Rashi say that, b'Di'eved, one fulfills the Mitzvah of Lulav with 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah'? The Lulav is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' and should be invalid.
</p><p>
(c) The Acharonim question Rashi's explanation from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (50b). The Gemara there says that when a stick is thrown in front of an idol, it does not become 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah.' The act of throwing a stick in front of an idol is not comparable to the act of pouring wine in front of an idol, which <i>does</i> make the wine 'Tikroves,' because an object becomes 'Tikroves' only when it is offered for Avodah Zarah in the same way that Korbanos or Nesachim are offered or sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The acts of Shechitah, Nisuch, and Zerikah involve breaking an object into smaller pieces (in Shechitah, the neck of the animal is cut; in Nisuch and Zerikah, individual drops are separated from the collection of liquid). The Gemara refers to this type of act as 'Zerikah ha'Mishtaberes,' tossing an object which becomes broken as a result. A solid object that is thrown whole before an idol does not become 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah.'
</p><p>
The act of throwing a stick in front of Avodah Zarah does not resemble any offering in the Beis ha'Mikdash (it is not a 'Zerikah ha'Mishtaberes') and therefore the stick does not become 'Tikroves.' Why, then, does Rashi say that the stick becomes 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah' when one throws it in front of an idol? It should not become prohibited at all! (<b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b>, <b>RASHASH</b>. The <b>RASHBA</b> in Yevamos 103b asks a similar question on Rashi.)
</p><p>
(d) Why does the Gemara answer that the Mishnah refers to 'Asheirah d'Moshe' -- an Asheirah that existed at the time that Eretz Yisrael was conquered, which cannot be annulled? The Gemara merely needs to say that the Mishnah refers to an Asheirah of a Jew. An Asheirah of a Jew cannot be annulled, and thus it may not be used for the Mitzvah because it is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.' (This indeed is the way <b>TOSFOS</b> and others explain the answer of the Gemara: 'Asheirah d'Moshe' means simply an Avodah Zarah of a Jew.)
</p><p>
(e) The Gemara's question on Rava is based on the assumption that the Asheirah which the Mishnah discusses belonged to a Nochri. The Avodah Zarah of a Nochri, however, can be annulled through Bitul. Accordingly, the Gemara asks why there should be a difference between the Asheirah of a Nochri and a Lulav of Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, who says that a Lulav of Avodah Zarah is one that is 'Meshamshei' or 'Tikroves' of Avodah Zarah, what is the Gemara's question on Rava from the Mishnah? Both the Mishnah and Rava may refer to an Asheirah or other Avodah Zarah of a Nochri which can become Batel. Nevertheless, before Bitul the rule of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies, because the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri indeed must be burned as long as Bitul has not been done. The difference between the Mishnah and Rava is that the Asheirah mentioned in the Mishnah, which was actually worshipped, must be burned and is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.' Rava, though, refers to a Lulav that merely was used in the service of an Avodah Zarah, and since it does not need to be burned (but only buried) it is not 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Why does Rashi not explain that the Lulav of Avodah Zarah which Rava discusses is simply a Lulav that was worshipped as Avodah Zarah?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH ba'Asheirah) and other Rishonim question Rava's statement from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (42a). The Gemara there states that when a Jew picks up a Nochri's Avodah Zarah, the Nochri can no longer annul it. The moment the Jew picks it up, he acquires the object and it becomes the Avodah Zarah of a Jew, and the Avodah Zarah of a Jew cannot be annulled. Why, then, does Rava say that a person fulfills the Mitzvah (b'Di'eved) with a Lulav of Avodah Zarah? If it is a Jew's Avodah Zarah, then it is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.' If, on the other hand, it is a Nochri's Avodah Zarah (to which 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not apply), the Jew still cannot fulfill the Mitzvah with it (even b'Di'eved), because in order to fulfill the Mitzvah he must pick it up, but when he picks it up it thereby becomes his and 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies.
</p><p>
Tosfos and the Rishonim answer that Rava allows one to use such a Lulav only if the one who takes it has in mind not to acquire it for himself. However, this does not suffice to explain why one may use such a Lulav on the first day of Sukos. On that day, there is a requirement that the Lulav belong to the Jew who uses it ('Lachem'; this requirement applies mid'Oraisa on the first day of Sukos). One should not be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav on the first day of Sukos with a Lulav of Avodah Zarah, because if it belongs to him, then it is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' since it no longer belongs to the Nochri.
</p><p>
This question bothered Rashi as well. In order to answer this question, Rashi explains that Rava refers specifically to 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah.' Rashi proposes that 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' differ from an object actually worshipped as Avodah Zarah, in that even after a Jew acquires 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' of a Nochri, they can still be annulled. (The reason why 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not apply to 'Meshamshei' is <i>not</i> because they are buried and not burned (as suggested above in question (b)). Rather, the reason is because 'Meshamshei' can be annulled and do not remain eternally prohibited. Support for this approach is cited later in (e).) 
</p><p>
Why, though, are 'Meshamshei' different from Avodah Zarah itself? Why should they be subject to Bitul even after a Jew acquires them? The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (in Avodah Zarah 52a, and in Sefer Lulav ha'Gadol, as explained by the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>ME'IRI</b>) explains that while the Avodah Zarah itself is in the hands of the Nochri, the Nochri can still annul the Avodah Zarah. When the Nochri annuls the Avodah Zarah, all of the 'Meshamshei' become annulled as well, because they are only secondary to the Avodah Zarah itself, even if they are in the hands of a Jew. In this manner, even 'Meshamshei' that presently belong to a Jew can be annulled.
</p><p>
For this reason, Rashi explains that Rava refers to 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah.'
</p><p>
(b) Since a Lulav of 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah' remains forbidden forever and cannot be annulled, it is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' and one should not be able to fulfill the Mitzvah with it (even b'Di'eved). Why does Rashi say that one fulfills the Mitzvah with such a Lulav?
</p><p>
The third question answers the second one. The act of throwing a stick in front of Avodah Zarah does not resemble any form of service performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and therefore a Lulav that was thrown in front of Avodah Zarah is not considered 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah.' The person who throws the stick is Chayav Misah for worshipping Avodah Zarah if the idol is normally served by throwing sticks at it. However, the stick itself does not become prohibited. Since it does not become forbidden as 'Tikroves,' it does not need to be burned, and thus it is not 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' and it may be used (b'Di'eved).
</p><p>
(c) However, if the Lulav does not become forbidden by being thrown at the idol, then why does Rava say that it may not be used for the Mitzvah l'Chatchilah?
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> cites the <b>RITVA</b> in Avodah Zarah (50a) who says in the name of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> that even if a stick thrown at Avodah Zarah does not become 'Tikroves Avodah Zarah,' it is not better than 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' (such as an item used to sweep and clean in front of the idol) which served some menial purpose on behalf of the Avodah Zarah. It therefore is Asur b'Hana'ah because it has a status of 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah,' but it can still be annulled like any other 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' of a Nochri.
</p><p>
(The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Sukah 8:1, DH v'Hineh) cites the <b>TALMIDEI RABEINU YONAH</b> (in Avodah Zarah 2b) who also write that an object offered to Avodah Zarah becomes Asur b'Hana'ah even if it was offered to the Avodah Zarah in a way that is not used in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Presumably their statement is based on the Ra'avad's logic. This opinion is also mentioned by the <b>ME'IRI</b> in Avodah Zarah 51b, DH Mah she'Amarnu, and the <b>RAMBAN</b> there.)
</p><p>
This is what Rashi means when he says that a Lulav that one threw or waved before an idol is forbidden. Since it was used to serve the idol, it became 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah.'
</p><p>
(d) Why does the Gemara not answer that the Mishnah refers to the Asheirah of a Jew (which cannot be annulled)?
</p><p>
The Gemara understands that since the Mishnah does not specify what type of Asheirah is invalid as a Lulav, presumably it refers to the standard type of Asheirah, that of a Nochri. This is why the Gemara does not say simply that the Mishnah refers to the Asheirah of a Jew.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that an Asheirah of a Nochri can be annulled and thus it should be valid (b'Di'eved) for the Mitzvah from the second day and onward, as long as the Jew who uses it for the Mitzvah does not intend to acquire it. 
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that there is a type of Asheirah of a Nochri which does not have Bitul and which indeed is forbidden forever, to which 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies: the Asheirah of the Nochrim at the time the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
(e) Why does the Gemara not answer simply that the Mishnah refers to a Lulav of a Nochri which was worshipped itself as Avodah Zarah (and which must be burned as long as Bitul has not been done), and that Rava refers to 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' (which do not need to be burned)? Why does the Gemara say that the Mishnah specifically refers to a type of Avodah Zarah for which Bitul is ineffective?
</p><p>
Many Rishonim (including <b>TOSFOS</b> in Yevamos (104a) and <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b> here) prove that any object that is Asur b'Hana'ah forever, even though it does not need to be burned, is considered 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' (since there is nothing to do with it but burn it). This apparently is Rashi's opinion here as well. (See also Rashi, end of Yevamos 103b.) Therefore, if 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies to Avodah Zarah before Bitul, then it must apply to 'Meshamshei Avodah Zarah' before Bitul as well. There is no choice but to explain that it applies to neither, because both can be annulled. 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies only to objects that remain forbidden forever and cannot be annulled (as explained in (d) above). Therefore, when the Mishnah states that one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah with a Lulav from an Asheirah tree (because of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei'), it must refer to the type of Asheirah which cannot be salvaged by Bitul.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CUT OFF TOP OF THE LULAV ('NIKTAM ROSHO)'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Huna):</font></b> While if the top is cut off it is 
          Pasul, it they are slit it is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa invalidates slit 
          (together with bowing, thorny, bent like a 
          sickle and hardened [but allows nearly 
          hardened]) leaves of the Lulav!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> The Pesul is Himnik, where 
          the slit in the top actually creates a 'V' or 
          quill effect.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>BENT LIKE A SICKLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This Pesul refers to a bend forward, 
          not back to its spine (which is Kosher) the way 
          it grows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Nachman considers bent to the side like bent 
          forward, others cite him saying it is like 
          backward.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If all the leaves are to one side of 
          the spine it is blemished and Pasul.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'NIFRETZU' AND 'NIFREDU'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Papa):</font></b> Nifretzu is where, like a sweep 
          broom, the severed leaves are gathered and tied 
          at their base to the spine of the Lulav; while 
          Nifredu is where the base is still attached to 
          the spine but the ends have fanned out from the 
          Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Papa):</font></b> What is the Halachah if the 
          center leaves (the Tiyomes, or extension of the 
          spine) split from one another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehoshua b. Levi taught that if the 
          Tiyomes were removed the Lulav is Pasul, which, 
          presumably, would extend to our Nechlakah case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Not necessarily, since removal of the leaves 
          creates Chaser, a greater alteration than 
          Nechlakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Alternate rendition of R. Yehoshua b. Levi:</font></b> 
          Nechlakah is like the removal of the Tiyomes 
          and it is Pasul.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>BINDING THE LEAVES TOGETHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah learns this from Kafus which implies 
          that if it were separated one must bind it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>DEFINING THE 'KAPOS TEMARIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina of R. Ashi):</font></b> Perhaps it is the 
          Charusa (a Lulav after the hardening of its 
          spine and leaves)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It cannot be bound (Kafos) due to it 
          hardness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is the Ufsa (bark without 
          leaves)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It must have a bindable quality, not 
          fixed as bound.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is the Kufra (not as thick 
          as the Charusa and still bindable)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The pleasant Torah would not 
          have us use that which scratches the hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava Tosfa'ah of Ravina):</font></b> Perhaps it 
          is two Machbedim (the fan shaped twig holding 
          the clusters of dates)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The word Kafos is written as though 
          singular.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then take just one?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is called a Kaf (and Kafos refers 
          to the binding).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZINEI HAR HA'BARZEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> This Lulav is Pasul if the lower leaf 
          does not reach the base of the leaf above it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is supported by the Beraisa which 
          invalidates the Tzinei Har ha'Barzel, which 
          must refer to one which Abaye would disqualify 
          (or else it would contradict our Mishnah).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: A CROOKED LULAV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that a Lulav that is 'Kafuf' (bent over) is invalid, and that a Lulav that is 'Akum (curved) like a sickle' is invalid. What is the difference between a Lulav that is 'Kafuf' (bent over) and one that is 'Akum (curved) like a Magal'? (<b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b> suggests that 'Kafuf' means that only the top of the Lulav's spine is bent over. 'Akum' refers to a curvature of the entire spine of the Lulav.
</p><p>
He quotes the <b>TESHUVOS HA'RADBAZ</b> who gives almost the opposite explanation: 'Kafuf' means that the entire spine is bent, and 'Akum' means that it has an indentation at some point on the spine (even in the middle), but the rest of the spine is straight.
</p><p>
(b) The Kapos Temarim quotes the <b>RITVA</b> and <b>RAN</b> who rule that when the top, center leaf (the most prominent part of the Lulav) is bent over, the Lulav is invalid because of 'Kafuf.' Based on their ruling, the Kapos Temarim suggests that 'Kafuf' means that the <i>leaf</i> is bent over, while 'Akum' means that the <i>spine</i> of the Lulav is bent.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> makes no mention of the Pesul of 'Kafuf.' He asserts that the Rambam's text of the Gemara did not include the word 'Kafuf.' The <b>MICHTAM</b> also did not have the word 'Kafuf' in his text.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 645:8-9) seems to understand 'Kafuf' as the Kapos Temarim suggests -- the top is bent over, but not the rest of the spine. It is logical that a curvature at any point in the spine invalidates the Lulav for the same reason.
</p><p>
Is a Lulav valid when only the tops of the leaves are bent over (this is called a 'Kneppel')? The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> rules that such a Lulav is valid. He bases this ruling on the <b>TESHUVOS HA'ROSH</b> who argues with the Ritva and says that not only is a Lulav not invalid when the top leaves are bent over, but such a Lulav is <i>superior</i> to other Lulavim, because the leaves of such a Lulav do not split apart as easily as they do when they are completely straight. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 645:42) cites the view of the Ritva, but he writes that the custom is to be lenient like the Rosh. 
</p><p>
If, however, the leaves are bent over excessively (such as all the way to the middle of the leaf), then certainly the Lulav is invalid (Mishnah Berurah 645:41).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: A SPLIT IN THE 'TEYOMES'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that a Lulav is invalid if its Teyomes is split ('Nechlekah ha'Teyomes'), just as the Lulav is invalid if its Teyomes is missing.
</p><p>
What exactly is the 'Teyomes,' and what does 'Nechlekah ha'Teyomes' mean?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (end of 31b) explains that the Teyomes is the top, center leaf into which the spine of the Lulav ends. If that leaf is split (along the natural seam that binds the two halves of the leaf together) along most of its length, the Lulav is 'Nechlekah ha'Teyomes' and is invalid. The reason it is invalid is because the top leaf of the Lulav is the most important part of the Lulav with regard to the requirement of 'Hadar' (since it is the leaf that is the most visible), just as the Pitam is the most important part with regard to the requirement of 'Hadar' of an Esrog.
</p><p>
The Ritva says that some authorities maintain that even when <i>less than half</i> of the length of the leaf is split, the Lulav is also invalid. He concludes that people who are especially scrupulous in their performance of Mitzvos should follow that opinion. He explains that even if the Halachah is not in accordance with that opinion, when part of the length of a Lulav leaf is split it is likely that the split will increase and reach a majority of the length of the leaf, in which case the Lulav certainly will be invalid.
</p><p>
(This explanation may also be the intention of the <b>GE'ONIM</b> cited by Tosfos in Bava Kama (96a) and by the Rosh here. However, the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 645) explains the opinion of the Ge'onim differently.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> explain, like the Ritva, that the Teyomes is the top, center leaf. However, they write that 'Nechlekah ha'Teyomes' invalidates the Lulav only when the split reaches all the way down to the spine of the Lulav and continues through the spine until the next set of leaves.
</p><p>
The <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (#96) quotes <b>RABEINU PERETZ</b> (in his Hagahos on the <b>SEMAK</b>) who cites a second Girsa of the words of Rashi. According to that text, Rashi requires that the split reach only a little into the spine in order to invalidate the Lulav; it does not need to reach so far down as the next set of leaves. (See <b>CHAZON ISH</b> OC 145:1.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Kama (96a) cites the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> (who apparently gives an explanation for the view of the Ge'onim cited earlier in that Tosfos) who says that the Teyomes is not a single leaf at the top of the Lulav, but rather it is a double leaf, each part of which is comprised of two halves like the other leaves of the Lulav. (That is, the leaf at the top the Lulav is a <i>double</i> double-leaf). Although most Lulavim end in a <i>single</i> double-leaf (that is, one leaf with two halves), if a Lulav happens to end in a pair of double leaves (that both end at the same level) which are connected to each other, and those two leaves split apart from each other, the Lulav is considered 'Nechlekah ha'Teyomes' and is invalid. (According to this explanation, Nechlekah ha'Teyomes is a relatively rare condition.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the <b>BEHAG</b> cited by Tosfos, the <b>RIF</b>, <b>RAMBAM</b>, and <b>ROSH</b> explain that the Teyomes refers to the thin membrane that connects the two halves of each leaf of the Lulav. 'Nechlekah ha'Teyomes' means that if most of the leaves were split and that membrane no longer binds them together, it is as if those leaves were removed entirely from the Lulav. Each leaf that splits into two is as considered as though it is not there, and thus if a majority of leaves split, the Lulav is invalid. (The text of the Gemara of these Rishonim reads, 'k'Mi she'Nitlah' -- 'it is as if it was removed,' and not 'k'Mi she'Nitlah ha'Teyomes' -- 'it is as if the Teyomes was removed.')
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 645:3) cites the opinion of the Rif and Rambam (d). The <b>REMA</b> cites the opinion of the <b>RITVA</b> (a) and writes that, l'Chatchilah, one should use a Lulav that is not split at all. (According to the Shulchan Aruch, if the middle leaf is split, even in its majority, the Lulav is valid).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Alternately, the above discussion was started 
          with the apparent contradiction, and Abaye's 
          qualification is its resolution.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  These two trees are located in Gei Ben Hinom 
          near Yerushalayim, at the entrance to Gehinom.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SHIUR OF A LULAV IS THREE 'TEFACHIM' TO SHAKE IT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Shiur of the 
          Hadas and Aravah is three Tefachim and the 
          Lulav must be four, to extend a Tefach above 
          the Hadasim and Aravos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Parnach citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The <i>spine</i> of 
          the Lulav must extend that Tefach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah only requires three 
          Tefachim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means three Tefachim and 
          that which is needed to shake it, which is the 
          Machlokes above.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa requires the Lulav to be 
          four Tefachim (with the Hadas and Aravah being 
          three), which would seem to be with its leaves 
          (like Shmuel)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means four Tefachim without the 
          leaves.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the above cited Beraisa, the Tana Kama 
               requires the Hadas to be three and R. 
               Tarfon says that it is an Amah of five 
               Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rava):</font></b> Who can find a 
               leaf-covered Hadas of three Tefachim, to 
               say nothing of <i>five</i>!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Dimi):</font></b> R. Tarfon meant that the 
               three Tefachim are measured by dividing a 
               six-Tefach Amah by five parts, only adding 
               a bit to the Shiur of the Tana Kama.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Shmuel is here cited as holding 
          that the Hadas must be three, yet he is cited 
          as holding like R. Tarfon whose Shiur is three 
          and three-fifths!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel was being approximate when he 
          said three.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we only attribute imprecision to 
          the statement when it is more stringent!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravin):</font></b> R. Tarfon meant to be more 
          lenient and to use a five-Tefach Amah and 
          divide it by six, resulting in a two and 
          one-half Tefach Hadas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Shmuel is still inconsistent!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This inconsistency can be attributed to 
          his imprecision, which is a Chumrah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE 'PESULIM' OF A HADAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Pesulim include a Hadas which is stolen, 
          dried out, from an Asheirah or Ir ha'Nidachas, 
          a clipped top, fallen leaves or whose berries 
          exceed its leaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the excess berries are removed it is Kosher, 
          but this repair may not be done on Yom Tov.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>DEFINING THE 'ANAF ETZ AVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A branch whose leaves cover it, the Hadas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is the olive tree?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is not Avos, with the leaves laying 
          upon one another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is the Dulva?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Its leaves to not cover the entire 
          branch.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is the Hirdof?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The pleasant Torah would not 
          have us use that which scratches the hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> A poisonous plant is 
          inconsistent with 'the love of Truth and 
          Peace.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> That which is woven (one leaf upon 
          the other) like a chain, that is the Hadas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer b. Yakov):</font></b> It is the tree whose 
          branch and fruit (or leaves) is identical, 
          namely, the Hadas.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>10) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MESHULASH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It was taught that Avos demands that it be 
          Meshulash.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What qualifies as Avos?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Three leaves from one 
          point.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Kehana):</font></b> Two from one point and one 
          from a point below resting on the other two 
          also qualifies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Out of respect for his Rebbi, R. Acha would 
          seek Hadasim like R. Kehana said.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar b. Ameimar):</font></b> My father called such a Hadas 
          a Shoteh (since it seemed to lack clear 
          direction).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: LULAVIM FROM DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PALM TREE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (29b) says that Lulavim from the type of palm tree known as 'Tzinei Har Barzel' are valid. The Gemara here quotes a Beraisa that says that such Lulavim are invalid. Abaye resolves the contradiction and says that the Lulavim from the Tzinei Har Barzel are invalid when their leaves are short (that is, the top of the lower leaf does not reach the bottom of the upper leaf).
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that, in general, Lulavim from such trees have very short leaves. The Rishonim mention a number of causes for the short leaves of these palms.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAN</b> writes that since it grows on a very hard mountain (Har Barzel), it does not receive sufficient nourishment from the ground and thus its growth is stunted and its leaves remain underdeveloped.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b> writes that since these trees grow next to the smoke that comes out of the valley of Gehinom, the smoke dries up the leaves before they reach their full length.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ARUCH</b> (Erech 'Tzani') explains that Dekalim (common palms) are tall palm trees, and 'Tzini' are short (or young) palm trees. Apparently, he understands that because the trees themselves are small, their leaves also grow exceptionally small.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MICHTAM</b> says that Tzinei Har Barzel are 'a type of palm tree.' Apparently, he understands that they are a different species, and thus they have a different nature and growth pattern than the common palm tree.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The first three opinions cited above imply that Tzinei Har Barzel are the same species as the normal palm tree, and that is why Lulavim from those trees are invalid only because of the length of their leaves (since their leaves are short, the Lulavim are not 'Hadar'). The Michtam, however, implies that even though they are a different species, if the leaves would reach their full height, the Lulavim would be valid even though they are from a different species of palm.
</p><p>
This discussion may be relevant to a contemporary Halachic question: may one use a Lulav from the Canary palm tree? A hundred years ago there were very few palm trees left in Eretz Yisrael. Palms were brought to Eretz Yisrael from the Canary Islands (off the northwest coast of Africa). These trees grow well in the central and coastal regions of Eretz Yisrael, where the climate is more mild than in the desert regions. The normal palm tree, such as the tree that is common in the Yericho region, flourishes in a dry and hot climate and does not grow well in the central and coastal areas, where the Canary palms flourish. The Canary palms tend to be prettier, larger, and slightly more green that the normal palms. In addition, their long branches and leaves do not fall off naturally, and thus they have more foliage. However, in contrast to the normal palms, they do not grow edible dates, but rather round, inedible berries.
</p><p>
The Canary clearly seems to be a different species of palm. Lulavim from the Canary are commonly found in the market (in Eretz Yisrael) before Sukos. Are such Lulavim valid for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim?
</p><p>
According to some Acharonim, such Lulavim are invalid, because the Canary palm does not bear the fruit (dates) of normal palm trees. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> and <b>RAV TZVI PESACH FRANK</b> (in <b>HAR TZVI</b>) reject this reason, because 'Temarim' (in the verse 'Kapos Temarim') does not mean 'dates,' but 'palm trees,' and thus the presence of dates is not a requirement for the Lulav of such a tree to be valid for the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The more relevant question is whether a Lulav from a species other than the common Israeli palm is valid. Is a Lulav from that tree valid simply because it closely resembles the common Lulav? Perhaps the Michtam would rule that it is valid, because the Lulav does not have to come from the same species as the common palm. The other Rishonim give no indication that such a Lulav is valid.
</p><p>
In practice, most Poskim rule that a Lulav from a Canary palm may not be used (just as a lemon may not be used in place of an Esrog). There are several ways to recognize whether a Lulav is from a Canary palm or from a common palm. First, the top leaves are shorter than the Teyomes and upper leaves of the Lulav of a common palm. Second, the distance (when measured along the spine) between the beginning of one leaf and the next is much shorter. Third, the Canary Lulav is generally a richer green. Fourth, the spine of the Canary Lulav is softer and bends more easily. Fifth, if one grasps a leaf of the Lulav between his fingers and slides his fingers down the leaf, a Canary Lulav will leave his fingers clean, while a common Lulav will leave his fingers covered by a whitish powder.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HALACHAH: HOW LONG MUST A LULAV BE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to the Gemara's conclusion, Shmuel maintains that the Tefach used to measure the Aravah, Hadas, and Lulav branches is a small Tefach, equal to 5/6ths of an ordinary Tefach. The Aravah and Hadas branches must be 3 small Tefachim long, or 2 1/2 ordinary Tefachim. The Lulav must be one Tefach longer than the Aravah and Hadas branches.
</p><p>
In practice, how long must the Lulav be?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH veha'She'ar) and the <b>ROSH</b> explain that the length of the Lulav must be 4 small Tefachim, which equals 3 1/3 ordinary Tefachim, or 13 1/3 Etzba'os (there are four Etzba'os in an ordinary Tefach, and 3 1/3 Etzba'os in a small Tefach).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> asserts that the <i>fourth</i> Tefach of the Lulav is an ordinary Tefach. His opinion is based on the Beraisa in Nidah (26a) which compares the fourth Tefach of the Lulav (that is, the one Tefach of the Lulav's length that extends beyond the Aravah and Hadas branches) to the Tefach of other Mitzvos. Since the Tefach of other Mitzvos is an ordinary, 4-Etzba Tefach, the fourth Tefach of the Lulav is also an ordinary Tefach. Accordingly, the Lulav must be 14 Etzba'os long, or 3 1/2 ordinary Tefachim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIF</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 7:8) make no mention of the Gemara's statement that the Tefachim with which the branches of the Arba'as ha'Minim are measured are small Tefachim. This omission implies that the 3 Tefachim of the Hadas and Aravah, and the 4 Tefachim of the Lulav, are all normal Tefachim of 4 Etzba'os. The Magid Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules like the Tana Kama in the Beraisa who argues with Rebbi Tarfon and mentions the Shi'urim without defining them as a different type of Tefach.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> All three opinions are cited by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 650:1). The <b>REMA</b> writes that, l'Chatchilah, one should be stringent and follow the view of the Rambam and use a Lulav of at least 16 Etzba'os, but, b'Di'eved, one may be lenient like the Rosh and use a Lulav of only 13 1/3 Etzba'os (see Mishnah Berurah 650:8).
</p><p>
The Shulchan Aruch adds that the minimum length applies only to the <i>spine</i> of the Lulav. If the spine is short and only the leaves reach the minimum length, the Lulav is not valid.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A HADAS LESS MOST OF ITS LEAVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How is it possible to have a Hadas 
          which has lost most of its leaves yet the 
          leaves still entirely cover the branch?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> A Hadas Mitzra'ah often has 
          even seven leaves in one place, such that even 
          if four fall off, it still qualifies as Avos 
          with the remaining three.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> This indicates that the Hadas 
          Mitzra'ah is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is that not obvious (since it is a 
          Hadas)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have forbidden it since it has 
          a qualifier in its name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then perhaps it should be 
          invalidated!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The term Etz Avos allows for any type 
          of Hadas.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DRIED OUT HADAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  As long as three moist leaves remain, the Hadas 
          is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> They must be at the tip of the 
          Hadas, not in the middle.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DICHUY' FOR 'MITZVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula b. Chinena):</font></b> A Tamarah which sprouted from 
          the end of the cut tip of a Hadas renders it 
          Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> What if the growth 
          sprouted after Yom Tov had entered (such that 
          its tip was cut when Yom Tov began)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Would we say that the Hadas has been 
               Nidcheh from its ability to perform the 
               Mitzvah, or not?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This can be answered by learning 
               the Mishnah regarding Kisui ha'Dam where 
               if the wind covered, and subsequently 
               uncovered the Dam, one still has the 
               Mitzvah to cover it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This seems to indicate Ein Dichuy by 
               Mitzvos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The very question of R. Yirmiyah 
               was whether this case of Ein Dichuy 
               generalizes to all cases, or whether that 
               only applies when it would be a Chumrah 
               (requiring him to cover the Dam) but not 
               when it would result in a Kulah (allowing 
               the newly-sprouted Hadas)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku, the matter is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Could this be the Machlokes regarding 
          a Hadas whose berries had been plucked on Yom 
          Tov!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok disallows and 
               Chachamim allow this Hadas to be used.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We are assuming that the Minim do not need 
               to be bound in order to be used; or, even 
               if they must be bound, there is no 
               restriction of Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> They would then be arguing over whether 
               there is Dichuy (R. Elazar, since it could 
               not be used at the time it was bound with 
               the other Minim) or not (Chachamim, that 
               Mitzvah opportunities return).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, they may agree to Ein Dichuy, but 
          argue whether we derive from Sukah the 
          restriction of Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> They would certainly learn 
          from Sukah, but they are arguing over whether 
          the Minim must be bound together (the Chachamim 
          hold that a Lulav is Kosher even if not bound, 
          and R. Yehudah holds that it must be bound to 
          be Kosher).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah from the Eizov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will the Chachamim learn 
               this connection?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They do not have a tradition to 
               learn this Gezeirah Shavah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It seems that neither of these Tanaim 
          would have taught that it is a Mitzvah to bind 
          them, but it is not Me'akev, yet we find this 
          in the Beraisa?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is the Chachamim, and the 
          require- ment is to beautify the Mitzvah, but 
          is not Me'akev.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A HADAS WITH MORE BERRIES THAN LEAVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda citing Rav with great reverence):</font></b> 
          This Pesul only applies if the berries are 
          clustered in one part of the Hadas, but not if 
          they are spread over two or three places on the 
          Hadas.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: HOW MANY LEAVES MUST REMAIN ON A DRY HADAS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that if most of the leaves of the Hadas branch have dried out, but 'it still has three Badim of moist leaves' it is valid. Rav Chisda adds that the moist leaves must be at the top of each branch.
</p><p>
What does the Beraisa mean when it says that the Hadas must have 'three Badim of moist leaves' left in order for the Hadas to be valid?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Beraisa means that each of the three branches ('Badim') of Hadas must have three moist leaves (on top, according to Rav Chisda). However, the words, 'It still has three branches of moist leaves' is unclear. What is 'it' that still has three branches?
</p><p>
The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the <b>ROSH</b>) explains that 'it' is the Lulav. The Beraisa is saying that 'the Lulav still has three [Hadas] branches of moist leaves,' which means that each of those three branches has three moist leaves on it.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> translates the word 'Badim' differently. He explains that 'Badim' means 'Kanim,' or 'sets of leaves.' His explanation of the Beraisa concurs, in practice, with Rashi's explanation: each Hadas must have at least three moist leaves left in order to be valid. When the Beraisa says '*it* still has three Badim of moist leaves,' the word 'it' refers to each of the three Hadas branches. The Beraisa is saying that if 'the three branches of Hadas still contain three <i>sets</i> (trios) of moist leaves (one trio of leaves per branch),' then it is valid. That is, if each Hadas branch has a set of three moist leaves left on top, it is valid.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> understands the Gemara differently. He explains, like the Ritva, that the word 'Badim' refers to 'Kanim' ('sets of leaves'). However, he says that the Beraisa refers to <i>one</i> branch of Hadas and not to three. The Beraisa is saying that if 'it (one branch of Hadas) still contains three sets of moist leaves' <i>anywhere</i> on the branch, then it is valid.
</p><p>
According to the Rosh, however, what does Rav Chisda mean when he says that the three sets of leaves must be 'at the top of each'? At the top of <i>what</i> must the three sets of leaves be? The Beraisa discusses only <i>one</i> branch, with one top (with space for only <i>one</i> set of three leaves)! How can all three sets of leaves be at the top of one branch?
</p><p>
The Rosh explains that Rav Chisda does not mean that the moist leaves must be at the top of the branch. Rather, he means that of the three sets of leaves on each branch, only one of the three leaves of each set must be moist, and he explains <i>which</i> leaf must be moist. The lowest leaf of the set, which usually is on top of (i.e. covers) the upper two leaves of the trio, must be moist, because it is the one that is most visible.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 646:8) cites both opinions. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (646:26) rules that the Halachah follows the first opinion, that each branch needs only three moist leaves left on top in order to be valid.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> But such spread-out berries 
          makes the Hadas appear Menumar (leopard-like) 
          and is Pasul!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav actually qualified the Mishnah by 
          saying that the Pesul applies only if the 
          berries are black, not if they are green.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Papa):</font></b> Red berries are like black ones (we 
          see by Dam Nidah that black is the extension of 
          red).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DICHUY' FOR 'MITZVOS' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The berries must have been plucked 
          off the Hadas after they were bound to the 
          Lulav (since if they were plucked prior, the 
          permission to use them would be obvious), and 
          the permission to use them should teach us that 
          there is no Dichuy for Mitzvos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah speaks of their being 
          plucked after they were bound, but before Yom 
          Tov began, and Hazmanah (as the binding is 
          viewed as Hazmanah) is not a cutoff point for 
          readiness regarding the Mitzvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'NIR'EH V'NIDCHEH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  While the Mishnah prohibits plucking the 
          berries on Yom Tov, it implies that were one to 
          do so, the Hadas would be Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Upon analysis, we should be able to 
          derive several Halachos from this implication.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the berries blackened before Yom Tov 
               then the permission to use such a Hadas 
               (plucked on Yom Tov) should prove Ein 
               Dichuy!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the berries blackened on Yom Tov (such 
               that the Hadas was Kosher when Yom Tov 
               entered, but became Pasul when the berries 
               blackened, and is now restored to its 
               Kashrus by the berries being plucked), 
               then we should prove that Nir'ah v'Nidcheh 
               may be Nir'ah once again!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> You may prove Ein Dichuy, but not 
          Nir'ah v'Nidcheh.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DAVAR SH'EIN MISKAVEN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim):</font></b> One may not pluck the berries on 
          Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Citing R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon):</font></b> One may do 
          so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But that is Mesaken on Yom Tov 
          (rendering it fit for use)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> He plucked the berries to 
          eat, and R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon holds (like 
          his father) that Davar Sh'Ein Miskaven is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Abaye and Rava taught that R. 
          Shimon never permitted a Davar Sh'Ein Miskaven 
          when it is a P'sik Reisha!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We permit the plucking where he has 
          other Hadasim with which to be Yotzei the 
          Mitzvah, (he is not rendering this one fit for 
          use).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>TYING ON YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If the binding unties on Yom Tov he must wind 
          the binding around and tuck it in (not tying it 
          at all).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why not make a bow (which will last 
          better and is not considered Keshirah)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is R. Yehudah who views a 
          bow as forbidden tying.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Beraisa is R. Yehudah (who 
          also holds that the Torah obligates the binding 
          of the Minim) then simply wrapping the binding 
          around is insufficient!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The author of this Beraisa agrees with 
          R. Yehudah on one point (forbidding a bow) but 
          disagrees on another (whether the Torah 
          obligates the binding).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE ARAVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A stolen or dried out Aravah is Pesulah, as 
          well as one from Asheirah, Ir ha'Nidachas, one 
          whose tip was cut off, whose leaves (in the 
          majority) have fallen, and the Tzaftzefah 
          (whose leaves are round).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If it is Kemushah (not fully dried out, or if a 
          minority of its leaves have fallen off or it 
          grows in a (Ba'al) field (not by a river), it 
          is Kesheirah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>10) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ARVEI NACHAL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  This teaches that it must grow by a river.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Alternately, its leaves are elongated, like a 
          river (and must not be round, like the 
          Tzaftzefah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama of another Beraisa):</font></b> The plural use 
          of Arvei that teaches the Aravos of a field 
          (not by a river) may be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Aba Shaul):</font></b> The plural refers to the Aravah of 
          the Lulav and that of the Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence will the Tana Kama learn the 
          obligation of surrounding the Mizbe'ach with 
          Aravah in the Mikdash?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is one of three Halachos l'Moshe 
          mi'Sinai reported by R. Asi citing R. Yochanan.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) PICKING BERRIES OFF OF A HADAS BRANCH ON YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that one may pick the berries off of a Hadas branch on Yom Tov, and the act is not considered 'Tikun Kli' (the formation of a new, usable vessel), even though he makes the Hadas branch valid for use for the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that one may pick the berries because his intention is not to fix the Kli, but to eat the berries. The Tikun Kli that results is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, since he had no intention to make a usable Kli.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that even though the act is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, it is a Pesik Reishei -- even though he had no intention to make a usable Kli, his action definitely will result in the formation of a usable Kli. In the case of a Pesik Reishei, everyone agrees that the act is forbidden.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that he has another valid Hadas branch, and thus he does not need the branch from which he removes the berries.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara's answer resolve the problem that his act is a Pesik Reishei? Even though he has another Hadas branch, when he picks the berries from the first one he turns it into a usable Hadas. His act is still a Pesik Reishei.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Modeh) explains that since the person has another Hadas and he does not need this one, his act (that makes this one fit for use) is considered a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for which one is exempt according to Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>
However, Rebbi Shimon agrees that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is prohibited mid'Rabanan. Why is it permitted in this case?
</p><p>
1. Tosfos here explains that Rebbi Eliezer (the son of Rebbi Shimon) permits the act l'Chatchilah when it will enable a Mitzvah to be fulfilled (the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim). (Even though the person picks the berries from the Hadas in order to eat them and does not intend to use this Hadas for the Mitzvah, since it is <i>possible</i> that someone else will need this Hadas for the Mitzvah, the Rabanan permitted a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah in this case.)
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (103a) suggests another reason for why this Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is permitted l'Chatchilah. Removal of the berries is not a complete Tikun Kli. He does not actually form a new item when he removes the berries from the branch; he merely makes the branch fit for use for the Mitzvah. His act is considered a 'Tikun Kal,' a 'light' Tikun, since it merely gives the item a new Halachic status and makes it valid for the Mitzvah. The Rabanan did not prohibit such a Tikun when it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
</p><p>
3. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kesuvos (6a) suggests another reason for why Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon permits one to perform a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah in this case. If the person picks the berries from the Hadas and never uses the Hadas for the Mitzvah, it will not be considered a Kli at all. It attains the status of a Kli only retroactively, when the person decides to use it as a Hadas on Yom Tov. Since he has another Hadas, and he may never need this Hadas for the Mitzvah, his act of picking the berries is only a <i>Safek</i> Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, and not a <i>definite</i> Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, and thus the act is permitted.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ARUCH</b> (Erech 'Pasak,' 'Savar') cited by Tosfos in Shabbos (103a) explains that a Pesik Reishei is forbidden only when one benefits from the act. When one derives no benefit from the result of the Pesik Reishei, it remains a permitted Davar she'Eino Miskaven (according to Rebbi Shimon).
</p><p>
(Rashi in Shabbos (75a, DH Tefei) seems to express an opinion similar to that of the Aruch, but Rashi adds that a Pesik Reishei is permitted only when the result of the Melachah is <i>detrimental</i> to the person who did it, and not if he is merely indifferent to it.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> appears to have an entirely different approach to the Gemara. Rashi explains that a Tikun Kli depends on one's personal preferences. That is, a Kli is not an item which has an objective definition. Rather, if a person does not want to use the item which he makes (such as the valid Hadas that he makes when he picks the berries from it), it will not be a Kli; it will be called a 'berryless Hadas,' but not a Hadas which can be used for the Mitzvah. Even if it is later used for the Mitzvah, the act of picking its berries is not considered (retroactively) an act of Tikun Kli, because the one who picked the berries did not intend to use it for the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
Rashi is consistent with his opinion elsewhere. In Shabbos (103a, DH b'Ar'a d'Chavrei), Rashi writes that if a person picks weeds from someone else's garden on Shabbos because he wants to eat the weeds and not because he wants to improve the quality of the garden (since it is not his garden), he is exempt from punishment for desecrating Shabbos, because he did not intend to improve the garden by weeding it. Since it was not his intention to beautify the garden, it is not considered as though he beautified it. It is clear from the words of Rashi that beautifying a garden is subjective; the definition of his act depends upon his intention. This opinion is expressed by the <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 10:17, 12:2) as well.
</p><p>
(Tosfos in Shabbos rejects this explanation, because it asserts that the reason why Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon permits one to pick the berries is not because the formation of the new Kli is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven which is permitted, but because one does not make a new Kli at all. The Gemara should have prefaced this answer with the word 'Ela' ('rather'), since it is an entirely new answer for why one is permitted to pick the berries.)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZAFTZEFAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> The source for invalidating the 
          Tzaftzefah is the Pasuk in Yechezkel (17:5).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The People are accused of changing from 
               being rooted in great waters to being a 
               Tzaftzefah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This indicates that the Tzaftzefah is not 
               water- based.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps the Pasuk is only 
          explaining what is meant by the great waters 
          (Tzaftzefah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The implication of Samo is that they 
          became other (worse) than what they were (as R. 
          Avahu read into the Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Alternate rendition of the above:</font></b> The Tana 
          cited this Pasuk to explain the exclusion of 
          Tzaftzefah, leading to R. Zeira asking Abaye's 
          question and R. Avahu's rendition of the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Aravah and what is 
          Tzaftzefah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The stem of the Aravah is red, its 
          leaves are long and its mouth (the outer ridge 
          of the leaf) is smooth, unlike the Tzaftzefah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we have learned that an Aravah 
          with ridges is Kosher!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa permits the 
          sickle-edged Aravah known as Chilfa Gila.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We may infer that Chilfa Gila is a 
          Kosher Aravah (Hoshana).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is that not obvious, given that it is 
          an Aravah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have invalidated it due to its 
          associated name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps, indeed, it is invalid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Arvei Nachal implies many types of 
          Aravah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHANGING NAMES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> Three pairs of items have switched 
          their names since the Churban, each carrying an 
          implication in Halachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosef added a fourth, with implication for 
          Gittin.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MOUNTAIN WILLOWS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a number of Beraisos that discuss the laws of Aravos. The first Beraisa says that one must use Aravos that grow near a river (this implies that Aravos from anywhere else may not be used). The Gemara cites another Beraisa that says that one may use Aravos from an irrigated field or from the mountains (where there are no rivers).
</p><p>
How are the two Beraisos to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (33b, DH Arvei Nachal) explains that, l'Chatchilah, a person should use Aravos from a tree that grows near a river. However, b'Di'eved, one may use Aravos from any Aravah tree. The Torah teaches only which Aravah is preferable l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
The <b>TUR</b> (end of OC 647) writes that this is the opinion of most Rishonim. Therefore, l'Chatchilah one should use Aravos from a tree that grows near a river or stream.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Rabanan) points out that the second Beraisa permits Aravos from the mountains only because the verse uses the word, 'Arvei,' in the plural form. However, the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yishmael who derives from the word 'Arvei' a different law -- the number of Aravos that must be used (two). Since the word 'Arvei' teaches the number of Aravos that must be used, there is no source that permits Aravos from the mountains. Therefore, Aravos that do not grow near a river or stream should be invalid even b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain that the first Beraisa does not mean that one must use only Aravos that grow near a river. Rather, it means that one should use the <i>species</i> of Aravos that normally grows near a river. This part of the Beraisa teaches the same thing as the second part of the Beraisa ('Davar Acher'), which states that one should use an Aravah that has long leaves that resemble a river, and not a 'Tzaftzefah' that has round leaves. The Beraisa describes the species of Aravah which one must use, and not the location in which it must grow.
</p><p>
The Rosh adds that this is consistent with the common practice, as no one is stringent to use only Aravos that grow next to a river.
</p><p>
This appears to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sukah 7:3) as well. The Rambam does not mention that the Aravos must grow next to a river. He says only that they must come from the <i>type</i> of tree that grows near a river.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 647:3) rules that it is not necessary to search for an Aravah that grows near a river.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE NUMBER OF EACH 'MIN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yishmael):</font></b> One must take three Hadasim, two 
          Aravos, one Lulav and one Esrog.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  At least one Hadas must not being Katum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Tarfon):</font></b> All the Hadasim may be Ketumim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Akiva):</font></b> Only one Hadas is required.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SOURCES FOR THE POSITIONS IN THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa provides the source for R. 
          Yishmael's requirements, and follows with R. 
          Tarfon's and R. Akiva's requirements regarding 
          the Hadas.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> The Esrog need not be bound 
          together with the other three Minim, owing to 
          the absence of the connecting Vav in the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The absence of any of the Minim is Me'akev, as 
          learned from Ul'kachtem.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> On what basis does R. Yishmael only 
          require <i>one</i> Hadas to be non-Katum (either 
          they all must be, or none need be)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Birah citing R. Ami):</font></b> R. Yishmael 
          retracted his requirement of three Hadasim, 
          requiring only one, which must be whole.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Tarfon (consistent with Shmuel's 
          threat to the Hadasim merchants against their 
          price gouging).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Shmuel wanted to follow a lenient 
          view, why didn't he threaten to teach the 
          Halachah like R. Akiva (requiring only one 
          Hadas)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is easier to find three cut Hadasim 
          than one whole one.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>ESROG </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Pesulim include an Esrog which is stolen, 
          dried out, from an Asheirah and Ir ha'Nidachas, 
          from Terumah Temeiah (but Terumah Tehorah, 
          while it should not be used, is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  An Esrog of Demai is a Machlokes whether it may 
          (Beis Hillel) or may not (Beis Shamai) be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim while it should 
          not be used, is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  An Esrog is Pasul if most of the face of the 
          Esrog developed s type of bubbling called 
          Chazazis, or if its Pitom or peel came off, if 
          it developed a crack or is missing any part.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If the Chazazis only covers a minority of the 
          Esrog, or the Oketz came off, or it has a whole 
          without anything missing it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  A black Esrog is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A green (like Karsi) Esrog is a Machlokes 
          whether it is Kosher (R. Meir) or not (R. 
          Yehudah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The minimum size of an Esrog is a Machlokes R. 
          Meir (like a nut) and R. Yehudah (like an egg).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The maximum size is a machlokes R. Yehudah 
          (must be able to hold two such Esrogim in one 
          hand) and R. Yosi (even so large as to need to 
          hands to hold it).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: USING MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF 'MINIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches the number of each of the Arba'as ha'Minim that one must use for the Mitzvah. The Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yishmael who says that one must hold one Lulav, one Esrog, two Aravos, and three Hadasim.
</p><p>
May one use more than the prescribed number of each Min (for example, ten Hadasim)?
</p><p>
(a) A number of Rishonim rule that one may add as many of each Min as he wants. Their ruling is based on several considerations. First, the Gemara earlier (31a) explains that according to the Rabanan, who maintain that there is no requirement to bind the Lulav with the other Minim ('Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged'), the Minim stand alone. Hence, when one adds an extra one of any Min, that extra one stands alone as well and there is no concern for Bal Tosif (the prohibition against adding to the Mitzvos).
</p><p>
Although the Beraisa there states that one may not add to the Arba'as ha'Minim, and the Beraisa seems to follow the Rabanan (who maintain that each Min stands alone, and thus Bal Tosif does not apply), that Beraisa refers to non-Minim. The Rabanan prohibited one from adding a species which is not one of the four Minim in order to prevent one from thinking that the added Min (such as a eucalyptus branch) is one of the Arba'as ha'Minim required by the Torah. The Rabanan did not prohibit one from adding an extra one of the Arba'as ha'Minim themselves. (<b>RITVA</b>, 31b)
</p><p>
Since the Halachah follows the view that the Lulav does not need to be bound with the other Minim, one should be permitted to add more of the Arba'as ha'Minim. (According to the opinion that a Lulav must be bound with the other Minim, adding another <i>type</i> of Min is forbidden mid'Oraisa, and adding another one of the Arba'as ha'Minim is forbidden mid'Rabanan. The only reason why one may use a Lulav leaf to tie together the Lulav, Aravos, and Hadasim is because it does not stand upright like a Lulav, and thus there is no concern for Bal Tosif.)
</p><p>
Second, even if the Rabanan prohibited one from adding a different type of Min as a rabbinical application of Bal Tosif (and not because of the concern that one might mistakenly think that this Min is one of the four which the Torah requires), they still permitted one to add one of the Arba'as ha'Minim. According to some Rishonim, the prohibition of Bal Tosif does not apply when one performs a single Mitzvah twice, but only when one adds to the Mitzvah a different item (which is not an item of the Mitzvah at all). (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
A third reason for why the Rishonim permit one to use more than the required amount of the Arba'as ha'Minim is because the Torah does not specify the number of Esrogim, Lulavim, Aravos, and Hadasim that one must use. Rather, the Torah merely gives the minimum number that one must use (at least one Esrog, one Lulav, two Aravos, and three Hadasim). Therefore, there is no problem of Bal Tosif if one adds more than the prescribed number. (<b>RITVA</b>, 31b)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 8:7) rules that one may add only to the number of Hadasim, because Hadasim add to the beauty of the Lulav. When one adds to a Mitzvah in order to beautify it, Bal Tosif does not apply. This is also the opinion of the <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 1:75).
</p><p>
According to a variant text of the Rambam's words (see the <b>RAN</b> here), the Rambam says that an Aravah may also be added because it, too, adds to the beauty of the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHIBOLEI HA'LEKET</b> (#358) rules that one may a Hadas and Aravah, but not a Lulav and Esrog. This is derived from the verse in which the Torah mentions the Hadas and Aravah in the plural form, and the Lulav and Esrog in the singular form (see 32a and 35a). The verse teaches that one may not use more than one Lulav or more than one Lulav.
</p><p>
(d) According to all of the opinions mentioned above, one may add more Hadasim to the Lulav. However, the <b>ROSH</b> cites the <b>GE'ONIM</b> who permit one to add Hadasim only if they are Meshulashim. A Hadas which is not Meshulash (such as a 'Hadas Shoteh') is a different species and therefore may not be added to the Hadasim.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> (31a) gives another reason for why one should not add a 'Hadas Shoteh.' As the Ritva explains (see (a) above), the reason why one may not add a non-Min to the Arba'as ha'Minim is because one might think that the non-Min is one of the Minim that the Torah requires for the Mitzvah. Therefore, one may not add a 'Hadas Shoteh' (which is invalid for the Mitzvah), lest one think that it may be used for the Mitzvah. (See also Insights to Rosh Hashanah 28:2:a.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 651:15) first cites the opinion of the Shibolei ha'Leket and the opinion of the Rambam (according to the alternate text), who permit one to add to the number of Hadasim and Aravos, but not to add a Lulav or Esrog. The Shulchan Aruch then cites the opinion of the Ge'onim who do not permit one to add a 'Hadas Shoteh.'
</p><p>
The Shulchan Aruch concludes that those who are scrupulous in their observance of the Mitzvos do not add to any Minim, even to the Hadasim and Aravos. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (651:60) adds that one who wants to add to the Minim should have intent to add for the sake of beautifying the Mitzvah.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW 'PRI ETZ HADAR' REFERS TO ESROG</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Its fruit and tree have the same 
          taste.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps this refers to Pilpelin?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Meir taught that Pilpelin has this 
                    quality.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> In addition, we are taught that it is 
                    obligated in Orlah, and that the Land 
                    is not missing anything.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Pilpelin are impossible to use 
               since one would not even be noticed, and 
               taking many would violate the singular 
               language of the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rebbi):</font></b> It is like a Dir (Hadar) which has 
          different sizes, shapes and ages of flock, like 
          the Esrog tree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But most fruit trees have such 
               variety!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We mean that the large ones are 
               still on the tree when the small ones come 
               out.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> It can reside (Dar like Hadar) on 
          its tree from year to year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ben Azai):</font></b> It is water-based (Hadar alludes to 
          the Greek Hydro) as it requires constant 
          irrigation.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'PESUL' OF 'ASHEIRAH' AND 'IR' 'HA'NIDACHAS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Its Shiur is reduced below the minimum given 
          that it must be burnt.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG OF 'ORLAH' IS 'PASUL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is Orlah Pasul?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Machlokes R. Chiyah b. Avin and 
          R. Asi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It may not be eaten (and hence fails on 
               Lachem).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It has no value (and Lachem implies 
               value).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We wanted to assume that the reasons 
          are exclusive but then how can we explain the 
          Pesul of Terumah Temeiah (which has value but 
          no Heter Achilah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Heter Achilah is the minimum 
          requirement, and the other opinion adds value 
          as another requirement.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When will the opinions create a 
          distinction in Halachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the use of Ma'aser Sheni in 
          Yerushalayim, according to R. Meir (who sees 
          Ma'aser Sheni as Mamon Gavo'ah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It certainly has Heter Achilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It has not value according to R. Meir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  From the Din of R. Meir which R. Asi cited, we 
          should conclude that R. Asi held that it 
          requires value.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the case of Ma'aser Sheni, R. Meir is 
               cited by R. Asi as disallowing the Esrog 
               while the Chachamim permit it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This, indeed, establishes the position of 
               R. Asi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Papa):</font></b> R. Asi cites two other 
          items which R. Meir discounts and the Chachamim 
          include, but Matzah does not fit the pattern!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni regarding the 
               Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A dough of Ma'aser Sheni regarding Chalah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Dough is associated with Arisoseichem, as 
               Lachem by Esrog, implying that personal 
               ownership is a requirement.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> But there is not word by Matzah to imply 
               personal possession!?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY MAY AN ESROG OF 'ORLAH' NOT BE USED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (34b) states that an Esrog of Orlah may not be used for the Mitzvah. The Gemara records two reasons for why such an Esrog is invalid. According to one Amora, an Esrog of Orlah is invalid because one is not permitted to eat it ('Ein Bah Heter Achilah'), and thus it is not considered 'Lachem,' the property of the person who fulfills the Mitzvah. (This reason is also given for why one may not use an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah.)
</p><p>
According to a second Amora, an Esrog of Orlah is invalid because one has no monetary ownership of an item of Orlah ('Ein Bah Din Mamon'), and thus it is not considered 'Lachem.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara seek a reason for why an Esrog of Orlah may not be used for the Mitzvah? The reason is obvious -- fruits of Orlah are 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' -- they must be burned (as must fruits of Terumah Teme'ah). Any object that must be burned is considered already burned and reduced to ashes, and consequently it does not have the minimum size necessary for the Mitzvah. 
</p><p>
It would have been much more appropriate for the Gemara to say that an Esrog of Orlah is invalid because of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei,' because that Pesul invalidates the Esrog for all seven days of Sukos. In contrast, the fact that the Esrog is not considered 'Lachem' (either because one may not eat it, or because one has no monetary ownership of it) applies only on the first day of Sukos.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara give a secondary reason for the Pesul of an Esrog of Orlah (and for an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah) and omit the primary reason?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Fi) answers that the Gemara indeed could have explained that an Esrog of Orlah is invalid because of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei,' and the reasons of 'Ein Bah Heter Achilah' and 'Ein Bah Din Mamon' have no advantage over the reason of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.' The only reason why the Gemara records this discussion is to explain the case (in the end of the Mishnah) of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni, according to Rebbi Meir who maintains that produce of Ma'aser Sheni belongs to Shamayim ('Mamon Gavo'ah'). According to the opinion that an Esrog must be permitted to be eaten in order to be used for the Mitzvah, an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is <i>valid</i>, because it may be eaten (in Yerushalayim). According to the opinion that one must have monetary ownership of an Esrog in order to use it for the Mitzvah, an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is invalid according to Rebbi Meir, because the person does not have full ownership of it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 8:9, and in Perush ha'Mishnayos here) explains that an Esrog that may not be eaten indeed is invalid for all seven days. He explains that the fact that it cannot be eaten not only removes the Esrog from the category of 'Lachem,' but it also removes it from the category of 'fruit.' The Esrog must be a 'Pri Etz Hadar'; if it is not edible it is not a 'Pri' (fruit) at all, and therefore it is invalid.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Rambam (in Hilchos Lulav) means that it is not proper to use such an Esrog for the Mitzvah, because it is Asur b'Hana'ah. The Gemara earlier (30a) cites a verse (Malachi 1:8) that teaches that items used for Mitzvos must be respectable, and an item that is Asur b'Hana'ah does not fall into that category (<b>RABEINU AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR</b>). Accordingly, the reason of 'Ein Bah Heter Achilah' invalidates the Esrog of Orlah all seven days, and thus the reason of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' has no advantage over it.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara mention the opinion that an Esrog must be the monetary property of its owner in order for him to use it for the Mitzvah? That reason invalidates the Esrog for only the first day of Sukos (because it is not 'Lachem'). It must be (as mentioned in (a) above) that this reason is mentioned only to explain the law at the end of the Mishnah, which says that one may not use an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni (according to Rebbi Meir).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b> suggests an answer which is also found in the <b>PISKEI RID</b>. When the Mishnah says that an Esrog of Orlah is invalid, it means that even an Esrog of Orlah from <i>outside</i> of Eretz Yisrael is invalid. The law is that the owner of Orlah fruit that grew outside of Eretz Yisrael may not eat that fruit, but he may feed it to others (Kidushin 39b). Accordingly, the Esrog is not 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei,' since it does not have to be burned and may even be sold. Why, then, may such an Esrog not be used? It must be because it is not considered 'Lachem' since it may not be eaten.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara give that reason for an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah, when it could give the reason of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei'? The Piskei Rid explains that Terumah Teme'ah is also not 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei,' because one <i>may</i> derive benefit from it. Even though Terumah Teme'ah must be burned, one is permitted to derive benefit from it as it burns (for example, he may benefit from the heat or light that it produces as it burns). In contrast, one may not benefit from other types of Isurei Hana'ah, even as they burn. Since there is a permissible way to derive benefit from the forbidden item in the case of Terumah Teme'ah, 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not apply.
</p><p>
However, if the subject of the Gemara here is an Esrog of Orlah from outside of Eretz Yisrael, how does the reason that 'Ein Bah Din Mamon' invalidate it? A fruit of Orlah from outside of Eretz Yisrael <i>is</i> considered to be legally owned, and the owner may even sell it to someone else. The Piskei Rid explains (as mentioned above in answers (a) and (b)) that the Gemara gives the reason of 'Ein Bah Din Mamon' here only because it will be needed later to explain the case of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b> (as cited by the Ritva) rule that an Esrog of Orlah indeed may be used on the last six days of Sukos. On the first day it may not be used because it is not 'Lachem,' as the Gemara says.
</p><p>
According to their opinion, why is such an Esrog not invalid because of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei'? Since it must be burned, it should be 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' and be invalid for all seven days of Sukos.
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is as follows. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Fi) writes that the obligation to burn Orlah is mid'Oraisa and not merely mid'Rabanan; the Torah requires that Orlah be <i>burned</i> and not just buried. (Tosfos makes this assertion even though in no place does the Gemara state explicitly that Orlah must be burned <i>mid'Oraisa</i>.) Why does Tosfos insist that the requirement to burn fruits of Orlah is a Mitzvah d'Oraisa? Perhaps Tosfos maintains that if the Mitzvah to burn Orlah is only mid'Rabanan, then 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' should not apply. 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not mean that anything that is Asur b'Hana'ah is not considered to have a Shi'ur. Rather, it means that anything that the <i>Torah</i> commands us to burn does not have a Shi'ur. If the requirement to burn Orlah would be mid'Rabanan, then it would not be considered already burned and it would not be 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.'
</p><p>
Perhaps the Ba'al ha'Me'or agrees with the logic of Tosfos, that 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' applies only when the Torah requires that the object be burned, but he argues with Tosfos about the obligation to burn Orlah. According to the Ba'al ha'Me'or, there is no Mitzvah d'Oraisa to burn Orlah. Therefore, an Esrog of Orlah is not invalid because of 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei,' and, consequently, it is invalid only on the first day.
</p><p>
For the same reason, an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah is invalid only on the first day of Sukos. 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei' does not apply because the obligation to separate Terumah from fruits other than wine and oil is only mid'Rabanan in the first place, and thus there is no Mitzvah d'Oraisa to burn an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Lulav ha'Gadol) and the <b>RITVA</b> (34b, 35a) explain that when the Gemara says 'Ein Bah Heter Achilah,' it actually means that the Esrog of Orlah is Asur b'Hana'ah and not just b'Achilah, and thus it indeed is 'Katusei Mikatas Shi'urei.'
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara give the reason of 'Ein Bah Din Mamon'? Those words certainly do not mean that the Esrog is Asur b'Hana'ah. It must be that this reason is mentioned only to explain the Mishnah's other case, that of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni (as explained above), and it is not intended to be an explanation for why an Esrog of Orlah may not be used. (In fact, the Ritva says that an Esrog of Orlah <i>does</i> have a 'Din Mamon.' Even though Orlah is Asur b'Hana'ah, its owner still has legal ownership over it. This is an issue that is debated by the Rishonim in a number of places.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) OWNERSHIP OF AN ITEM WORTH LESS THAN A 'PERUTAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a dispute between Rebbi Chiya bar Avin and Rebbi Asi about whether one must have legal ownership ('Din Mamon') of an Esrog in order to fulfill the Mitzvah with it, or whether it suffices merely to be permitted to eat it ('Heter Achilah'). A practical difference between the two opinions exists in a case of an Esrog that has a 'Heter Achilah' (it may be eaten) but does not have a 'Din Mamon' (it is not legally owned by the person who uses it). According to Rebbi Meir, an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is such a case: the Esrog may be eaten (in Yerushalayim), but it does not belong to its owner, but rather to Shamayim.
</p><p>
When the Gemara first cites this dispute to explain why an Esrog of Orlah may not be used for the Mitzvah, <b>RASHI</b> explains that an Esrog of Orlah does not have a 'Din Mamon' because it is not worth a Perutah ('Ein Bah Shaveh Perutah'), as it is Asur b'Hana'ah. A person cannot have ownership of an item which has no worth, and thus the Esrog is not considered 'Lachem.'
</p><p>
Similarly, Rashi earlier implies that an item worth less than a Perutah is not considered legally owned (and is thus not considered 'Lachem'). The Rabanan earlier (27b) prove that one may use a borrowed Sukah for the Mitzvah from the verse that implies that only a Sukah in which all of the Jewish people are able to sit is valid. In order for all of the people to sit in one Sukah, it must be that one person owns the Sukah and the others fulfill their obligation by <i>borrowing</i> his Sukah. Rashi asserts that the verse cannot mean that they all collectively <i>own</i> the Sukah, because each person's share would amount to less than a Perutah's worth of the Sukah (since there are so many people), and thus the Sukah would not be considered 'Lachem.' One must own at least a Perutah's worth of an object in order for it to be considered his property.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> (30a) asks that according to Rashi, who says that an object worth less than a Perutah is not considered 'Lachem,' why does the Gemara say that the practical difference (whether an Esrog must be owned or not) exists only in a case of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni? The Gemara should give a much more obvious difference -- a case of an Esrog which is worth less than a Perutah! Such an Esrog is not 'Lachem' according to the opinion which requires an Esrog to have a 'Din Mamon.'
</p><p>
In addition, the <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (325:9) and the <b>SHA'AREI TESHUVAH</b> (OC 482:1) ask that although there is a requirement for Matzah to be 'Lachem' (Pesachim 38a), there is no requirement that the Matzah be worth at least a Perutah. Similarly, in practice, the Aravos that one buys for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim are often inexpensive and worth less than a Perutah. If an object worth less than a Perutah is not considered 'Lachem,' then why may one use Matzah or Aravos that are worth less than a Perutah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> explains that when Rashi says that an object worth less than a Perutah is not considered owned ('Lachem'), he refers only to fruit of Orlah and to other Isurei Hana'ah. An object which is Asur b'Hana'ah has absolutely no value. (For example, if one gathers together a thousand fruits of Orlah, they still have no value.) Objects which are not Asur b'Hana'ah, but merely have little value and are worth less than a Perutah, are considered to be owned, because if one adds them together their value will be more than a Perutah. Since such items add up to more than a Perutah when combined with the rest of one's property, they are considered legally owned and even fulfill the condition of 'Lachem.' (The Gemara in Gitin (20a) makes such a distinction. See also <b>TOSFOS RID</b> to Sukah 41b, who permits Aravos worth less than a Perutah.)
</p><p>
According to this answer, why does Rashi earlier (27b) say that it is impossible for all of the Jewish people to own one Sukah and fulfill their obligation with it? The Sukah is not Asur b'Hana'ah, and thus the small portion of Sukah which each person owns should be considered legally his and fulfill the condition of 'Lachem.'
</p><p>
Rashi does not mean that one has no legal right over what is worth less than a Perutah (as a Nochri is killed even if he steals less than a Perutah; Sanhedrin 61a). He also does not mean that what is worth less than a Perutah lacks the condition of 'Din Mamon' and is thus not considered 'Lachem,' because Rashi's explanation of the Tana is not limited to the opinion that maintains that 'Din Mamon' is necessary; he explains the Tana according to all opinions, even according to the Amora'im who do not require 'Din Mamon.' What is Rashi's intention?
</p><p>
<b>HAGA'ON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN</b> zt'l explained that a person's ownership of an object worth less than a Perutah is considered 'Lachem' only when that person is the sole owner of the object. An object owned by a partnership ('Shutfus') is different. In a partnership, if each person's share of the object is not worth a Perutah or more, he does not own enough to make it considered 'Lachem.' In fact, when a person owns an object in a partnership, even if his share is worth more than a Perutah it is not fully 'Lachem' (see <b>TOSFOS</b> 27b, DH Kol, who maintains that one does <i>not</i> fulfill a Mitzvah which requires 'Lachem' with an object he owns in a partnership). When each partner's share amounts to less than a Perutah's worth, it is not considered 'Lachem' at all.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is connected by the word Lechem to 
          Chalah, (from which a dough of Ma'aser Sheni is 
          Patur) hence it must be yours.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> May R. Asi find support in the 
          Beraisa cited regarding a dough of Ma'aser 
          Sheni?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer and Question:</font></b> Is that a question!? That 
          is our very case!!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our question was whether the Machlokes 
          regarding a dough would also apply to Esrog, or 
          whether a dough has <i>two</i> references to 
          possession and thus may not generalize to 
          Esrog.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG OF 'TERUMAH' 'TEMEI'AH' IS 'PASUL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It lacks a Heter Achilah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG OF 'TERUMAH' 'TEHORAH' SHOULD NOT BE USED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The reason is a Machlokes R. Ami and R. Asi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Its use would likely make it Muchshar to 
               receive Tum'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Its use would likely cause its 
               deterioration, as the skin wears down from 
               handling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When will the opinions create a 
          distinction in Halachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If he excluded the skin when making it 
          Terumah (it still could be exposed to Tum'ah, 
          but it would not be affected by the handling).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF USED, IT IS KOSHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It satisfies both opinions (Heter Achilah and 
          value).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>'DEMAI' IS A 'MACHLOKES' BEIS HILLEL AND BEIS SHAMAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does Beis Hillel permit Demai?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the owner could make himself an 
          Ani and be entitled to use Demai, we view him 
          as such, even now (as the Mishnah permits 
          feeding Demai to the poor).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do Beis Shamai prohibit Demai?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They hold that a poor man may not eat 
          Demai (as R. Huna taught that the matter is 
          subject to Machlokes).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG OF 'MA'ASER' 'SHENI' SHOULD NOT BE USED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  It could both become Muchshar, as well as 
          deteriorate.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF USED, IT IS KOSHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If the requirement is Heter Achilah, then the 
          Din is the opinion of both R. Meir and 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the requirement is also value, then the 
          opinion is only the Chachamim (since, according 
          to R. Meir, Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavo'ah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>10) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHAZAZIS' ON THE MAJORITY OF ITS SKIN MAKES IT </font></b>
     '<b>PASUL</b>'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda, reverently citing Rav):</font></b> It is Pasul 
          only if the Chazazis is found in one place, but 
          not if it is found in two or three places.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> But surely two or three places 
          is worse, rendering it Menumar (leopard-like)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the statement of Rav should be 
          applied to the Seifah, where a minority of 
          Chazazis is Kosher, only if it appears in one 
          place, not if it appears in two or three 
          places, where it makes it Menumar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Even a tiny Chazazis on the Chotam 
          (where it begins to become slimmer) is Pasul.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>11) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'PITAM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The word used by R. Yitzchak b. Elazar is 
          Bochan (see Rashi).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>12) </font></b><font color='blue'>'NIKLAF'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A skinned Esrog which turned ruddy is 
          Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah taught that Niklaf is 
          Pasul!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If it is entirely skinned it is Kosher; 
          partially skinned (creating multiple colors) is 
          Pasul.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: THE 'CHOTAM' OF AN ESROG</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (34b) states that when the majority of an Esrog is covered with spots of blight, the Esrog is invalid. The Gemara quotes Rava who says that if the spots are on the Chotam, then even the smallest amount invalidates the Esrog.
</p><p>
What is the Chotam?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (according to the <b>ROSH's</b> understanding) says that the Chotam is a thin, circular strip around the surface of the Esrog at the place where it begins to slope sharply towards its point (the part commonly called the Pitam). The Chotam is not comprised of the entire area of the slope, but only the small strip around the Esrog at the point where the slope begins.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the <b>RIF</b> (as explained by the Rosh), and the <b>RAN</b> explain that the area of the slope itself, from the point where it begins to slope until the Pitam, is called the Chotam.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b>, <b>RITZ GE'AS</b>, and the <b>RAN</b> (in the name of 'Acherim') explain that the Chotam is the peg-like stem that holds the crown (Shoshanta) at the top of the Esrog.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>ROSH</b> rules that one should be stringent and follow the opinions of both Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel. Therefore, if an Esrog has a minimal amount of spots on it from the point that it begins to slope (including the area itself where the slope begins), until the Pitam, it is invalid.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HALACHAH: THE 'BUCHNA' OF AN ESROG</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (34b) states that an Esrog is invalid if its Pitam fell off. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar says that the Esrog is invalid 'if the Buchna fell off.'
</p><p>
What is the Buchna?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b>, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 8:7), and the <b>RAN</b> (in the name of 'Acherim') explain that the Buchna is the small crown at the top of the Esrog ('Shoshanta') and the peg-like stem that supports it (the part commonly called the Pitam). Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar in the Beraisa does not argue with the Mishnah, but merely explains what the Mishnah means when it says 'Pitam.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the <b>RIF</b>, <b>RAN</b>, and <b>RABEINU YITZCHAK HA'LEVI</b> cited by Rashi explain that the Buchna is the ball at the root of the Ukatz, the piece of wood at the bottom of the Esrog by which it hangs from the tree. If the Ukatz falls off but the little ball inside the Esrog remains, the Esrog is not considered 'lacking' ('Chaser'), nor does it have the appearance of lacking, and is valid. However, if the little ball also falls out, the Esrog is lacking and is invalid.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 648:8) rules like the Rif and Rambam, who say that if the Ukatz at the bottom of the Esrog falls off, the Esrog is invalid because it is lacking. If, however, the ball (inside the Esrog) which is attached to the Ukatz did not come out with the Ukatz (that is, no indentation is left at the place where the Ukatz fell off), the Esrog is valid, since it is not considered lacking (<b>REMA</b> there, and <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> 648:33-34).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A HOLE IS 'PASUL' WHEN SOME FLESH OF THE ESROG IS MISSING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula b. Chanina):</font></b> If the hole is runs through 
          the Esrog, the Esrog is Pasul with the loss of 
          a Mashehu; if it is not that deep it is KeIsar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the Din if the Esrog 
          develops symptoms akin to the Tereifos of an 
          animal?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Anything to which Rava might be 
               referring has already been taught (as 
               Kosher or Pasul) in a Mishnah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rava is asking about the 
               application of the Din of Ula citing R. 
               Yochanan regarding the liquified flesh 
               around the lung.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ruled the animal still 
                    Kosher.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Rava qualified this ruling as 
                    applying only when their are still 
                    intact Symponin.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>In the parallel case of Esrog, the 
                    flesh is liquefied but the seeds 
                    (equivalent to the blood vessels in 
                    the lungs) are still intact.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> Rava's question is whether we view 
                    the fact that the Esrog is exposed to 
                    air (unlike the lung cavity) as 
                    rendering it already rotten, or does 
                    it not make a difference.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We learn in the Beraisa that a Tafuach 
          and Saruach are among the listed Pesulim of the 
          Esrog.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Surely the Saruach is our case where the 
               skin (and area around the seeds) is intact 
               but the flesh is rotten.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We see, then, that Rava's case is Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  No indication may be drawn from that Beraisa 
          since both Tafuach and Saruach may refer to 
          external features which may exist exclusively 
          of one another.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ESROG 'HA'KUSHI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Among the listed Pesulim (in 1.c. above) is the 
          Esrog Kushi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But our Mishnah taught that it is 
          Kosher, while one which is <i>similar</i> to an 
          Kushi is Pasul!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah means to invalidate 
          an Esrog similar to a Kushi (ie. a black Esrog 
          found outside of Kush, where black is not 
          normal, is Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are speaking of an actual 
          Esrog from Kush which would be Kosher in Babel 
          (its proximity to Kush makes a Kush Esrog 
          common there) while in Eretz Yisrael it would 
          be Pasul.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG THAT IS 'BOSER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  In the above-cited Beraisa there is a Machlokes 
          whether an Esrog ha'Boser is Pasul (R. Akiva) 
          or Kosher (Chachamim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> R. Akiva and R. Shimon are of one 
          opinion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva as cited.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon exempts tiny Esrogim from 
               Ma'aser (presumably for the same reason as 
               R. Akiva, that they are not considered a 
               fruit and lack Hadar).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Akiva may not be of one mind with 
          R. Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva may invalidate the unripe Esrog 
               because of its lack of Hadar, but may 
               agree with Chachamim regarding its 
               qualification for Ma'aser (since it may, 
               after all, be eaten)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Alternately, R. Shimon may have exempted 
               it from Ma'aser inferring this from the 
               Pasuk (that to be obligated the fruit must 
               be fit for use as a seed) but hold like 
               Chachamim regarding Esrog.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Thus the opinions of R. Akiva and R. Shimon may 
          not be equated.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: AN ESROG 'KUSHI'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> One Beraisa states that an 'Esrog Kushi' is valid, while an Esrog which is 'similar to a Kushi' is invalid. Another Beraisa, as well as the Mishnah (34b), state that an Esrog Kushi is invalid.
</p><p>
Abaye explains that when the Mishnah says that an Esrog Kushi is invalid, it refers to an Esrog 'similar to a Kushi.' An actual Esrog Kushi, though, is valid.
</p><p>
Rava argues and says that even an actual Esrog Kushi is invalid, as the Mishnah states, but it is invalid only when it is used in Eretz Yisrael. Since such an Esrog is not common in Eretz Yisrael, it does not qualify as 'Hadar' and thus it is invalid. The Beraisa that says that an Esrog Kushi is valid refers to an Esrog Kushi when it is used in Bavel, where such Esrogim are common.
</p><p>
What is an 'Esrog Kushi' and what is an Esrog which is 'similar to a Kushi'?
</p><p>
(a) Rashi explains that an Esrog Kushi is one that grew in the land of Kush. The Kush-species of Esrog is much darker than the ordinary Esrog. Such an Esrog is valid for use in Kush because that is its normal habitat. In contrast, if a local Esrog tree in another place produces a mutant Esrog which is dark colored and looks like an Esrog from Kush (it is 'similar to a Kushi'), it is invalid even in Kush. Rava adds that even the Esrog Kushi itself is invalid in Eretz Yisrael (if it was imported, for example), because such dark Esrogim are uncommon and are considered uncomely to those who are not accustomed to such dark Esrogim.
</p><p>
Why, according to Rava, is an Esrog Kushi valid in Bavel? Rashi explains that Bavel is close to Kush, and the Esrogim of Kush are thus commonly found in Bavel. (Support for Rashi's explanation may be found in the Yerushalmi (Sukah 3:6).)
</p><p>
The land of Kush is commonly identified as Ethiopia. If Kush is Ethiopia, though, why does Rashi say that it is close to Bavel? Ethiopia is closer to Eretz Yisrael than it is to Bavel, and thus its Esrogim should be more common in Eretz Yisrael than in Bavel.
</p><p>
Apparently, the land of Kush mentioned in the Mishnah and Beraisa does not refer to the Kush in east Africa. Rather, it refers to a country close to Hodu (India), as mentioned in the Gemara in Megilah (11a). (This Kush was likely in the region of the Hindu-Kush Mountains in east Afghanistan).
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 8:8) write that an Esrog Kushi refers to a dark green Esrog. Such an Esrog is valid in Bavel, because in Bavel the Esrogim are darker than in Eretz Yisrael. 'Similar to a Kushi' means that it is a much darker color, closer to black. The words 'similar to a Kushi' do not mean that the Esrog is similar to an <i>Esrog</i> from Kush, but rather that it is similar to the skin color of a native <i>person</i> of east Africa ('Kushi'). Even in Bavel such an Esrog is invalid because such Esrogim are not common. In Eretz Yisrael both types of Esrogim are invalid, because the Esrogim there are generally of a lighter green.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Rif and Rambam are more stringent than Rashi with regard to an Esrog which is very black. According to their interpretation of the Gemara here, even where Esrogim naturally have black skin, they are invalid. (Apparently, they maintain that a black Esrog is considered a different species.) Rashi, in contrast, permits such an Esrog in places where it grows and is commonly used. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 648:17) rules like the Rif, that a very black Esrog is invalid regardless of where it is used or where it grows. (Today there is no practical difference between the different opinions with regard to a black Esrog, because there is no place in the world in which an Esrog naturally grows black.)
</p><p>
Rashi is lenient in another respect as well. Even in a place where Esrogim do not grow dark, if dark Esrogim are often imported to that place one may use the foreign Esrogim. Since they are a common sight in that place, they do not lack the condition of 'Hadar.' In contrast, the Rif and Rambam do not permit such an Esrog; they require that the Esrog look like the other Esrogim that <i>grow</i> in that place. However, the <b>PISKEI RID</b>, who explains 'Esrog Kushi' like the Rif, nevertheless accepts this leniency and rules that when one is near the place where the dark Esrogim grow, he may use a dark Esrog for the Mitzvah. The Shulchan Aruch does not comment about the use of a dark Esrog in a place where such Esrogim are imported. (See <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b>, DH Makom, who interprets the Machlokes Rishonim somewhat differently. Therefore, there may be grounds to be lenient and permit such Esrogim.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE DEEPER SIGNIFICANCE OF AN 'ESROG KUSHI'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses the validity of an 'Esrog Kushi.' One Beraisa states that an 'Esrog Kushi' is valid, while an Esrog which is 'similar to a Kushi' is invalid. Another Beraisa, as well as the Mishnah (34b), state that an Esrog Kushi is invalid. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
According to Rava's answer, even an actual Esrog Kushi is invalid, as the Mishnah states, but it is invalid only when it is used in Eretz Yisrael. Since such an Esrog is not common in Eretz Yisrael, it does not qualify as 'Hadar' and thus it is invalid. The Beraisa that says that an Esrog Kushi is valid refers to an Esrog Kushi when it is used in Bavel, where such Esrogim are common.
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (<b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> on Sukah) presents a fascinating homiletical interpretation of the Gemara's discussion about the validity of an Esrog Kushi (according to Rashi's definition; see previous Insight):
</p><p>
The Torah refers to Tziporah, the wife of Moshe Rabeinu, as a 'Kushis' (Shemos 12:1). The Gemara in Moed Katan (16b) explains that the verse does not mean that her skin color was black, but that she was outstanding in her deeds.
</p><p>
According to the Midrash, the Esrog represents the Tzadik. Just as the Esrog both tastes good and smells good, the Tzadik performs good deeds and learns Torah. Since the Gemara in Moed Katan defines 'Kushi' as 'outstanding in one's deeds,' an Esrog Kushi refers to an exceptionally great Tzadik, one who involves himself exclusively in Torah and spiritual pursuits and avoids involvement with the mundane activities of the world.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Berachos (35b) records the famous dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. According to Rebbi Yishmael, one should learn Torah as his primary endeavor and work for a livelihood as his secondary endeavor. According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, one should be involved exclusively in learning Torah. The Gemara says that many people conducted themselves like Rebbi Yishmael and met with success, while many others conducted themselves like Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai (they learned Torah to the exclusion of all other pursuits) but did not succeed.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer explains in the name of his Rebbi, the <b>HAFLA'AH</b>, that the reason why those who followed Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai did not succeed was because they followed his philosophy only superficially. They acted like him outwardly, while inwardly they lacked his conviction and his faith, and thus they did not succeed. They were not 'Tocho k'Voro' (Berachos 28a) -- they were not as genuine on the inside as they appeared to be on the surface. They only '*did like* Raban Shimon bar Yochai.'
</p><p>
The Hafla'ah explains that the Beraisa here which discusses the 'Esrog Kushi' alludes to the conditions necessary to succeed in following the philosophy of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. A Talmid Chacham who is entirely 'Kushi,' externally and internally, is the only one who will succeed. If he is only 'similar to a Kushi' -- he acts like a 'Kushi' but inwardly he is not as committed as he appears, then he will not succeed.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer explains Rava's statement in the same way. Rava says that even an Esrog Kushi is valid only outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rava alludes to the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael in Berachos, who maintains that a person is supposed to be involved in worldly activities in order to earn a livelihood while he makes Torah learning his primary pursuit. The Gemara in Berachos relates that Rava himself would send away his Talmidim twice a year to earn a livelihood, because he followed the view of Rebbi Yishmael.
</p><p>
Rava here says that in Eretz Yisrael even a 'Kushi' is invalid -- a Talmid Chacham should not be involved only in learning Torah, because he must work the fields and reap the produce of Eretz Yisrael. This requirement of a Talmid Chacham, however, applies only in Eretz Yisrael, because only in Eretz Yisrael does cultivating the fields involve a practical Mitzvas Aseh (Yishuv Eretz Yisrael). The Mitzvah of Talmud Torah does not override that Mitzvah, just as it does not override the Mitzvos of holding the Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos and eating Matzah on Pesach. In contrast, outside of Eretz Yisrael, where there is no Mitzvah to cultivate the land, Talmud Torah overrides the need to be involved in earning a livelihood, and therefore in Bavel (outside of Eretz Yisrael) an Esrog Kushi (a Talmid Chacham involved only in learning Torah) is valid.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN ESROG GROWN INTO A MOLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa above invalidates an Esrog which 
          was shaped by the form placed around it during 
          its growth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This holds only if the mold forces it 
          into a new shape, not if it is in the shape of 
          an Esrog.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> That is obvious, the Beraisa itself 
          mentions the new shape as the source of 
          invalidation!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We need Rava's Din to permit the case 
          where the form made the Esrog look like a 
          series of slats connected in the shape of an 
          Esrog.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHASER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> An Esrog which was bitten by mice lacks 
          Hadar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Chanina would eat some of his 
          Esrog and then use it for the Mitzvah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will R. Chanina understand 
               the Mishnah which invalidates a Chaser?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Chanina was speaking on Yom Tov 
               Sheni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mice make a worse Hadar problem than 
          simple Chaser (and would be Pasul even on the 
          second day).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Alternate rendition of the above:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> An Esrog bitten by mice is still 
               Hadar, as supported by R. Chanina's 
               practice.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will R. Chanina understand 
               the Mishnah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He permits the Chaser on Yom Tov 
               Sheni.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SMALL ESROG</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rafram b. Papa):</font></b> The Machlokes regarding Esrog 
          is the same as the one regarding the size of 
          stones used for sanitary purposes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  There, too, R. Meir allows the carrying of 
          stones up to the size of an Egoz and R. Yehudah 
          allows until an egg.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>A LARGE ESROG</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi supported his allowing a very large 
          Esrog by reporting the incident wherein R. 
          Akiva arrived with his huge Esrog slung on his 
          shoulder.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> That is not a support since the 
          Rabbis corrected R. Akiva there (pointing out 
          that it is not Hadar)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>8) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' BINDING THE 'MINIM' WITH THE 'MINIM THEMSELVES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Minim must be bound with the 
          Minim themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> Any string is adequate, as supported 
          by the people of Yerushalayim who would use 
          gold thread.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> They would tie them with Minim 
          underneath the adornment.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>9) </font></b><font color='blue'>'IGUD' USING OTHER MATERIALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Any material from the Minim, even the 
          least significant (such as Siv), is adequate 
          for R. Yehudah, who does not require Hadar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The rationale of R. Yehudah is his 
          requirement that the Minim be bound, thus 
          lending significance to the binding material 
          which, if another material is used, would 
          introduce a fifth Min.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> I learn the inclusion of Siv as a type 
          of Lulav material from the implication of this 
          Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Meir):</font></b> Any vegetation may be used (as 
               derived from the Pasuk).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Sechach must be made 
               only of the leaves of the Minim, (from a 
               Kal va'Chomer).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Chachamim):</font></b> Any Kal va'Chomer which 
               results in a Kulah (since one who cannot 
               find Sechach of the Minim would be without 
               a Sukah) may not be learned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Rather, any vegetation may be used, as 
               seen clearly from the Pasuk in Nechemiah 
               wherein Ezra tells the People to bring 
               various leaves in addition to the Minim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The other vegetation were 
               meant for the walls, and the leaves of the 
               Minim were meant for the Sechach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Now we know from the Mishnah that R. 
               Yehudah permits planks as Sechach, which 
               must be the planks of wood from the trees 
               of the Minim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Hence we know that even Siv (which is part 
               of the palm tree) is Kosher!
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YEHUDAH ALLOWS 'SECHACH' ONLY FROM THE FOUR 'MINIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We find at R. Yehudah allows Sechach 
          from other than the four Minim (as he disputes 
          the dimensions of Erez planks with R. Meir)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Erez is the Hadas (as taught by Rabah 
          bar R. Huna that Hadas is one of 10 types of 
          Erez).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. MEIR ALLOWS THE 'MINIM' TO BE BOUND WITH ANY STRING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Meir cites the fact that upper classes of 
          Yerushalayim would use gold strings, and he was 
          told, in response, that (like R. Yehudah) they 
          would tie with one of the Minim underneath.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rabah told those who were binding Lulavim to 
          allow space for a hand so that the binding not 
          be a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Anything made to adorn the Lulav is not 
          a Chatzitzah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHATZITZAH' AND TAKING THE LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> It is not permitted to drape one's 
          hand with a cloth upon taking the Lulav (not a 
          proper Lekicha).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Indirect Lekicha is a proper Lekicha.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is Rava's source?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> From the Mishnah which allows an 
               extension stick to be used to lower the 
               Eizov into the Mei Chatas for sprinkling 
               (which requires Lekicha).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Maybe the attached stick is 
               viewed as the Eizov itself, unlike the 
               cloth around his hand?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A LULAV-HOLDER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether one must hold the Lulav in his bare hand, or whether he may use a Lulav-holder with which to grasp the Lulav. Rabah maintains that one may not use a Lulav-holder, because it is considered a Chatzitzah (intervention) between his hand and the Lulav. The Torah requires that one grasp the Lulav with a 'Lekichah Tamah' (a 'complete grasp'), and thus one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah when there is a Chatzitzah. Rava argues and says that a Lulav-holder is not a Chatzitzah, because it is used for the purpose of beautifying the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and discusses whether one may hold a Lulav with a handkerchief. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the question is whether one is permitted to wrap the handkerchief around one's hand and hold the Lulav with it. Rabah says that one may not hold the Lulav in such a way, because it is not a 'Lekichah Tamah.' Rava argues and says that one may hold the Lulav with a handkerchief, because 'Lekichah Al Yedei Davar Acher Shemah Lekichah' -- when one holds an object by the way of something else, he is considered as though he is holding the object itself.
</p><p>
In the Gemara's first discussion (about a Lulav-holder), it is clear that even Rava would agree that an intervening item that does not serve to beautify the Mitzvah is considered a Chatzitzah. Why, then, does he not consider a handkerchief a Chatzitzah (but only a 'Lekichah Al Yedei Davar Acher')? Since it does not serve to beautify the Mitzvah, Rava should agree that it is considered a Chatzitzah.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara in Pesachim (57a) relates that a sinful Kohen by the name of Yissachar Ish Kefar Barka'i was punished because he performed the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash while he wore gloves. Rashi there explains that the gloves were a Chatzitzah and thus disqualified the Avodah. What is the difference between one who holds the Lulav while he wears a handkerchief around his hand (which is not considered a Chatzitzah according to Rava) and one who performs the Avodah while he wears a glove? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH d'Ba'ina)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) In his first answer, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Ba'ina) suggests that a handkerchief differs from a Lulav-holder in the following way. Since the handkerchief is wrapped around one's hand (and not around the Lulav), it serves the hand and not the Lulav. It is considered subordinate to (and part of) the hand and thus it is not a Chatzitzah.
</p><p>
Why, then, was Yissachar Ish Kefar Barka'i punished because he wore a glove during the Avodah? His glove served his hand and should not have been considered a Chatzitzah. Tosfos answers that he was not punished for performing the Avodah with a Chatzitzah, but rather for disgracing the Avodah by showing that he did not want to touch it directly with his hands.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> quotes the <b>RAMBAN</b> who answers the question from the case of Yissachar Ish Kefar Barka'i differently. He asserts that the Gemara here is not discussing the question of Chatzitzah at all. There is no concern for a Chatzitzah when one holds a Lulav. Even Rabah, who does not permit one to hold a Lulav with a handkerchief, does not call it a Chatzitzah; he says only that it is not a 'Lekichah Tamah.'
</p><p>
(In the previous case, although Rabah says that a Lulav-holder is a Chatzitzah, he means that it is not a proper Lekichah, as Rashi there explains. He does not mean that a Chatzitzah itself invalidates one's fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Lulav. However, when the Gemara later (37b) mentions Chatzitzah, it certainly refers to the normal problem of Chatzitzah, because the rules of 'Min b'Mino Eino Chotzetz' would not be appropriate to the discussion there if the problem with a Chatzitzah was only that it is not a 'Lekichah Tamah.' The difference between the Gemara here and the Gemara later is that the Gemara here refers to an intervening object between one's hand and the <i>Lulav</i>. The Gemara there refers to an intervening object between one's hand and the <i>other Minim</i>.)
</p><p>
When one holds the Lulav, a Chatzitzah itself is not a Pesul. Rather, the Torah requires a 'Lekichah Tamah.' The Gemara here inquires whether something that is wrapped around one's hand when he holds the Lulav is considered a proper Lekichah. In the case in Pesachim, the sinful Kohen was punished because the <i>Avodah</i> may not be done with a Chatzitzah. Even though his glove was serving his hand, it was a Chatzitzah between his hand and the Avodah. In contrast, when one holds a Lulav, there is no requirement that there be no Chatzitzah, but that there be a 'Lekichah Tamah.' The only case of a Lekichah that is not 'Tamah' is where there is an object between one's hand and the Lulav that neither serves the hand (and thus is not Batel to it) nor beautifies the Lulav.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos (ibid.) eventually rejects this explanation. He answers instead that an object is considered a Chatzitzah between one's hand and the Lulav only when the object is necessary. A Lulav-holder is necessary because it holds the Lulav together with the other Minim, and without it the Arba'as ha'Minim would not be bound together. In contrast, an object which is extraneous, such as a glove, is not considered a Chatzitzah. (Perhaps the logic behind this answer is the principle, 'Kol ha'Ra'uy l'Bilah, Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo'; since the Lulav does not need that object (it is possible to remove it and still fulfill the Mitzvah properly), it is not considered a Chatzitzah.)
</p><p>
Tosfos also rejects this explanation on logical grounds. Tosfos argues (and proves from Yoma 58a) that if the object is not necessary for the Lulav, then, on the contrary, it certainly should be considered a Chatzitzah.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos concludes that in the case of one who holds a Lulav with a handkerchief, the handkerchief is not wrapped around his hand or around the Lulav. Rather, the handkerchief is arranged in such a way that it serves as a holder for the Lulav: the handkerchief holds the Lulav, while the person's hand holds the handkerchief. (For example, he loops the handkerchief around the Lulav and gathers the two sides of the handkerchief and twists them together. He thereby forms a handle which he holds in his hand.) In this case, the handkerchief actually assists the hand to hold the Lulav, and it does not merely protect the hand. Consequently, with regard to the act of Lekichah (holding the Lulav), the handkerchief is considered an extension of the hand and is not a Chatzitzah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rava's source is the fact that the 
               ashes of the Parah may be shaken from the 
               tube into the water, even though it 
               requires Lekicha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> One must not press the Lulav into the 
          binding between the Hadas and Aravah lest one 
          sever leaves resulting in a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Min b'Mino is not Chotzetz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> One must not cut the bottom of the 
          Lulav while it is already bound, lest the 
          now-unattached leaves create a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Min b'Mino is not Chotzetz.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>SMELLING THE 'MINIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> It is not permitted to smell the 
          Hadas, but it is permitted to smell the Esrog.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Hadas is made for fragrance, and has 
               been designated away from its ordinary 
               purpose in order to fulfil the Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Esrog is made for eating, and has not 
               been restricted from being smelled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> An attached Hadas may be smelled, but 
          not an attached Esrog, as explained (and see R. 
          Chananel).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> The Lulav is taken in the right (since 
          more Mitzvos are attached to it) and the Esrog 
          in the left.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we mention Lulav in the 
          Berachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because it is taller (above) the 
          others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then raise up the Esrog and mention 
          <i>it</i>!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We mean the Lulav is taller and more 
          outstanding as a species.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' WAVING THE LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When do we wave the Lulav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beis Hillel):</font></b> Twice at Hodu and at Ana 
          Hash-m Hoshiyah Na.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beis Shamai):</font></b> Also at Ana Hash-m 
          Hatzlichah Na.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Akiva):</font></b> I saw R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua 
          refrain from joining the others in waving at 
          Hatzlichah Na.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WAVING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who mentioned waving such that we 
          should jump in with the question of when it 
          takes place!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The first Mishnah in our Perek makes 
          reference to waving when speaking of the 
          required length of the Lulav, and our Mishnah 
          picks up from there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah in Menachos describes waving the 
          two loaves on the Kivsei Atzeres as the 
          prototype of all waving.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The four directions acknowledge 
          He Who rules over the four directions, and the 
          up and down acknowledges His Dominion over 
          Heaven and Earth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chama b. Ukva citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi 
          Chanina):</font></b> The six directions are prayers to 
          block the Ruchos and Telalim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This demonstrates that even the 'portions' of 
          Mitzvos block misfortune (even if they do not 
          block the Mitzvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Acha b. Yakov would wave and indicate that 
          this should be a thorn in the Satan's eyes (who 
          did not succeed in severing us from the yoke of 
          Heaven).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  It is not proper to do this, lest the Satan 
          fight back.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: HOW TO WAVE THE LULAV</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah discusses the parts of Hallel at which one should wave the Lulav ('Na'anu'im'). The Gemara describes how these Na'anu'im are performed. According to Rava, the Lulav is waved in the same way as the loaves of the Shtei ha'Lechem are waved on Shavuos in the Beis ha'Mikdash: forward and back (Molich u'Mevi), and then up and down (Ma'aleh u'Morid).
</p><p>
The Yerushalmi (3:10) quotes a Beraisa that states, cryptically, that one must wave the Lulav 'three times for each thing.' Rebbi Zeira in the Yerushalmi questions whether the movement forward is considered one waving and the movement back is considered a second waving, or whether the full forward-back movement is considered one waving.
</p><p>
What does the Beraisa mean when it says that one must wave the Lulav 'three times for each thing'? In addition, how does the Yerushalmi's description of the three Na'anu'im match the description of the Na'anu'im given by the Gemara here (Molich u'Mevi, Ma'aleh u'Morid)?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kedei), the <b>ROSH</b> (3:26), and the <b>TUR</b> (OC 651) explain that according to the Gemara here, one must point the Lulav towards six directions -- to the four directions (east, south, north, west), and up and down. The Yerushalmi adds that when one stretches his arms to each direction, he also must move his hands back and forth three times (making a smaller to-and-from movement). Rebbi Zeira's question in the Yerushalmi is whether one needs to move his hands back and forth only three times (back, forth, back), or six times (back-forth, back-forth, back-forth).
</p><p>
Tosfos, the Rosh, and the Tur rule that one should be stringent and perform six short wavings since there is no excessive effort involved. Accordingly, one waves the Arba'as ha'Minim a total of 36 wavings (six times in each of the six directions).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b> (cited by the Rosh) and the <b>RITVA</b> (in the name of 'Yesh Mefarshim') explain that the Bavli and Yerushalmi describe the same wavings but in different words. The Gemara here says that one should wave the Lulav 'Molich u'Mevi, Ma'aleh u'Morid,' and the Yerushalmi says that those constitute three movements -- 'Molich u'Mevi' are two movements, and 'Ma'aleh u'Morid' is one movement.
</p><p>
Rebbi Zeira questions whether the single series of 'forward and back' (Molich u'Mevi) is considered two movements and thus it suffices to move the Lulav forward and back a single time, or whether the 'forward and back' movement is considered only one movement and thus one must do two actions of 'forward and back' (forward-back, forward back; or, alternatively, forward-back, side-to-side) in order to achieve two movements. The 'up and down' movement is counted as only one movement because 'down' is not counted as a separate movement (since it is not possible to go up without coming down).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Lulav 7:10) rules that the Bavli and the Yerushalmi complement each other and note two different <i>types</i> of movements of the Lulav. The Bavli says that one should extend the Lulav to each direction (as well as up and down). The Yerushalmi adds that when one stretches out his arms, he must also make the top of the Lulav jiggle while his arms are outstretched. This is the Na'anu'a mentioned in the Mishnah earlier (29b). The question of Rebbi Zeira is whether one must also perform these short quivers of the Lulav when one brings his hands back to his body. Accordingly, the Yerushalmi describes an entirely different aspect of waving the Lulav than the Bavli. The Bavli describes moving the Lulav back and forth, and the Yerushalmi describes jiggling the Lulav.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RIF</b>, <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RITVA</b>, and <b>RAN</b> explain, like the Rambam, that the Bavli and Yerushalmi discuss two types of waving. However, according to these Rishonim, the two types of waving are done at two different times. After one performs the Bavli's set of forward and back, up and down, movements, one must jiggle the Lulav three times. This quivering, although much smaller than the forward and back movements, also involves a small forward and back motion. Rebbi Zeira's question is whether this forward and back quivering motion is considered two movements (forward and back), so that it suffices to perform three such movements (forward, back, forward), or whether it is considered one movement (forward-back), so that one must do six movements (forward-back, forward-back, forward-back).
</p><p>
(The last two opinions do not mention that the Lulav must be stretched out to all four directions in addition to up and down. Perhaps they maintain that it suffices to move the Lulav just forward and back (i.e. in two directions), besides up and down. The Ba'al ha'Itur (in (b) above), who maintains that this is the doubt of Rav Zeira in the Yerushalmi, also concludes that, l'Halachah, it suffices to wave the Lulav merely forward and back.)
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> prove that the Bavli also requires that the Lulav be quivered, even though the Bavli does not explicitly say so. The Mishnah (29b, as explained by the Gemara on 32b) says that the Lulav must extend at least one Tefach beyond the height of the Hadasim and Aravos 'in order to shake it.' If there is no need to jiggle the Lulav, but only to move it back and forth, why is an extra Tefach on top necessary? It must be that the Bavli also understands that when the Mishnah says 'Na'anu'a,' it refers to jiggling the Lulav.
</p><p>
This proof can be refuted by the Rambam's explanation there (in Perush ha'Mishnayos). The Rambam explains that the Mishnah does not mean that there must be an extra Tefach on top of the Lulav, but rather that there must be an extra Tefach that extends <i>below</i> the Hadasim and Aravos, at the <i>bottom</i> of the Lulav. The purpose of this extra Tefach is to enable one to grasp the Lulav with his hands in order to move the entire bundle back and forth. 'In order to shake the Lulav' means that the Tefach is needed so that one can hold the Lulav in order to move it back and forth. According to this explanation, there is no proof that the Bavli requires jiggling the Lulav (because the top of the Lulav does not extend beyond the Hadasim and Aravos).
</p><p>
(The <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos Lulav, however, does mention the requirement to jiggle the top of the Lulav, as mentioned in (c) above. Perhaps the Rambam retracted the opinion he expressed in Perush ha'Mishnayos. Alternatively, perhaps the Rambam argues with the Ramban and Ritva and maintains that the top of the Lulav does not need to extend a Tefach in order for one to jiggle it; even if the top of the Lulav is level with the top of the Hadasim and Aravos, one still can jiggle it.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 651:9) seems to rule in accordance with the opinion quoted by the <b>TUR</b> in the name of his father, the <b>ROSH</b> (as explained by the Beis Yosef), who mentions major and minor back-and-forth movements to each of six directions. He does not mention jiggling. The <b>REMA</b> adds that one must also jiggle the leaves of the Lulav <i>while</i> he moves it back and forth. In addition, although the Rema agrees with the Shulchan Aruch that one must move the Lulav forward and back three times (for a total of six movements), he argues that those movements are done by stretching out one's arms completely and then bringing the arms back to one's body; the movements are not short, forward and back movements that are done once the arms are outstretched, as the Shulchan Aruch rules (that is, according to the Rema, there are two sets of major movements and no minor movements).
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' LATE 'NETILAS' 'LULAV'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One who arrived from his travels where he did 
          not have Lulav and Esrog must do Netilas Lulav 
          upon entering his home, 'upon' (meaning prior 
          to) eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One who did not do Netilas Lulav in the morning 
          may do so all day.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>INTERRUPTING A MEAL FOR A PASSING MITZVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> While our Mishnah implies that he 
          must interrupt his meal, we find regarding 
          Tefilas Minchah that he may complete his meal!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Safra):</font></b> He must interrupt only when 
          there is not likely to be sufficient time after 
          his meal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps the distinction is 
          simply between a d'Oraisa (Lulav on the first 
          day) and a d'Rabanan (Tefilah)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Rather, R. Safra answered 
               the following question:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Reisha implies that he must 
               interrupt and the Seifa states that he has 
               all day to make up the Netilas Lulav!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> In response to that question R. 
               Safra distinguished between a case where 
               he had sufficient time and where he did 
               not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Perhaps it is simply a 
          case of l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Safra answered the 
               first question (the difference between 
               Lulav and Tefilah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They are both d'Rabanan since we are 
               speaking of the second day of Yom Tov, not 
               the first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This seems reasonable, given that the 
               Mishnah speaks of one who is coming in 
               from his travels.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' READING THE 'HALEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One may have an Eved, Isha or Katan dictate the 
          words of Halel for him to repeat, but cursed is 
          the one who does so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a Gadol recites Halel, the listener is 
          Yotzei, and responds Halelukah to whatever the 
          Gadol says.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Depending on local Minhag, Pesukim are either 
          repeated or not, and a final Berachah is either 
          recited or not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>BEING 'MOTZI' ANOTHER IN 'BIRKAS' 'HA'MAZON'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is that a son (who is only 
          obligated d'Rabanan because of Chinuch) may be 
          Motzi his father (who is only obligated 
          d'Rabanan by virtue of the volume of food he 
          ate).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  An Eved may be Motzi his master and a wife her 
          husband (they are all on the same level of 
          Chiyuv) but accursed is the one who does so.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ACCURSED BE THE ONE WHOSE SLAVE RECITES HALLEL FOR HIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that if a slave, woman, or minor reads Hallel for a man, he must say each word after them (since they cannot exempt him from his obligation, because they have no obligation to recite Hallel themselves). Moreover, if a man recites Hallel in such a manner (repeating each word after a slave, woman, or minor), 'Tavo Lo Me'eirah' -- 'a curse should befall him.' In contrast, if another adult male reads Hallel for him, he merely listens and fulfills his obligation through hearing Hallel (because of 'Shome'a k'Oneh').
</p><p>
Why is a man accursed if he says Hallel by repeating, word-for-word, Hallel recited by a slave, woman, or minor? <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Tavo) explains that he is accursed because he never bothered to learn how to say Hallel by himself, and even if he did learn how to say Hallel, he is accursed because he appointed unsuitable emissaries to say Hallel for him.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a similar Beraisa with regard to Birkas ha'Mazon. The Beraisa says that although a minor, slave, or woman (see the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> who discusses the change in the order of these three from the order that appears in the Mishnah) may exempt a man from his obligation to recite Birkas ha'Mazon (in the event that he ate only enough to obligate himself mid'Rabanan), nevertheless a man who fulfills his obligation to say Birkas ha'Mazon in this way is accursed. <b>RASHI</b> here (DH she'Ishto) says that such a man deserves to be cursed because the fact that his wife recites Birkas ha'Mazon for him 'is certainly because he did not learn' how to say Birkas ha'Mazon by himself.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation here is problematic.
</p><p>
1. Rashi says that when the Mishnah discusses a man whose slave, wife, or child reads Hallel for him, it refers not only to one who does not know how to recite Hallel himself, but also to one who <i>knows</i> how to recite Hallel himself. Why does Rashi explain that the case also refers to a man who knows how to recite Hallel himself? Why would a man appoint a slave to read Hallel for him if he can read it himself? He gains nothing by having the slave read it, because in any case he is required to read along with the slave.
</p><p>
2. Rashi explains that in the Beraisa's case, the man has his wife or child recite Birkas ha'Mazon for him 'certainly because he did not learn' how to say it himself. Why is it obvious to Rashi that the man does not know how to recite Birkas ha'Mazon himself? Perhaps he knows how to recite it, but he nevertheless wants them to recite it for him, just as Rashi explains with regard to Hallel.
</p><p>
3. With regard to Hallel, Rashi says that if the man knows how to say Hallel, he still is accursed if he appoints unsuitable emissaries to recite it for him, because he disgraces Hash-m by appointing such emissaries. Rashi's words are unclear. His appointed emissaries do not say Hallel 'for' him. He says Hallel himself; they say each word, and he repeats it after them.
</p><p>
4. According to Rashi in the Mishnah, the man is accursed because he never learned to say Hallel himself. If this is the reason why he is accursed, then he should be accursed even when he appoints another adult male to say Hallel for him! Similarly, in the case of the Beraisa, why is the man accursed only when his wife, child, or slave recites Birkas ha'Mazon for him? Even if another man recites it for him, he should be accursed because he never learned how to say it himself. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH u'Sehi)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggests an entirely different approach to the Sugya. When the Mishnah says 'Tavo Lo Me'eirah,' it refers only to a man who does not know how to recite Hallel himself. However, the fact that he never learned how to say Hallel is <i>not</i> his wrongdoing. The reason he is cursed is because he asked a person who has no obligation to recite Hallel to say it for him so that he can repeat it word for word, and he did not ask someone who is obligated to recite Hallel to exempt him. Accordingly, it is a disgrace only when he appoints a slave, woman, or minor to recite it for him, but not when he has another adult male recite it for him.
</p><p>
In the Beraisa, even though his wife and child are obligated (mid'Rabanan) to recite Birkas ha'Mazon, he still is accursed because Birkas ha'Mazon is something that every person should know (since it is said so frequently). (<b>MAHARSHAL</b> and <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b>; see <b>MAHARSHA</b> for a different explanation.)
</p><p>
(b) The Acharonim suggest various approaches to resolve the words of Rashi (see <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b>, <b>NETZIV</b>, and <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>). However, their explanations are difficult to reconcile with the words of Rashi.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi's intention is as follows:
</p><p>
When Rashi suggests that, in the case of the Mishnah, the man who appoints a slave to recite Hallel for him knows how to recite it himself, Rashi means that the man is ignorant in that he thinks that a slave can exempt him. The man assumes that he can listen to the slave's Hallel without reciting it himself. He is worthy of a curse because he attempted to appoint such an unworthy emissary. In addition, he is accursed for having disgraced Hallel by <i>attempting</i> to make such a person his emissary. This answers the first and third questions above.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that the man in the case of the Beraisa never learned how to say Birkas ha'Mazon? The answer is that Rashi noted a difference between the wording of the Mishnah and the Beraisa. The Mishnah says, 'Mi she'Hayah Eved...' ('one <i>who had an Eved... read for him</i>'), while the Beraisa says, 'Eved Mevarech l'Rabo' ('an Eved <i>may recite the blessing for</i> his master'), and 'Tavo Lo Me'eirah l'Adam she'Ishto u'Vanav Mevorchin Lo' ('a curse should befall the man whose wife or children <i>recite Birkas ha'Mazon for him</i>').
</p><p>
The Mishnah seems to refer to a specific, isolated incident, in which a man happens to appoint a slave to say Hallel for him. The Beraisa discusses a man whose slave, wife, or child <i>always</i> recites Birkas ha'Mazon for him, and that is why he is accursed.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa say that he is accursed only when they <i>always</i> recite Birkas ha'Mazon for him? The answer is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with appointing one's wife to recite Birkas ha'Mazon on his behalf, because she is also obligated to recite it for herself (as Tosfos points out). Since she is also obligated, it is not a disgrace for her to exempt a man (when his obligation is only mid'Rabanan). The problem exists when the man does not know Birkas ha'Mazon by heart, and thus he <i>always</i> relies on his wife to say it for him. When a person always relies on his wife to recite Birkas ha'Mazon for him, it obviously is because he does not know how to recite it himself. That is why Rashi says he 'certainly' did not learn; since we see that he always relies on the members of his household to recite it for him, it must be that he does not know it himself, and therefore he is cursed.
</p><p>
In the fourth question, we asked that if the man never learned how to say Hallel himself, why is he not accursed when he has another man read Hallel for him? The truth is that he should be cursed in such a case. However, from the isolated incident which the Mishnah discusses, <i>we</i> are unable to determine that he does not know it by heart, and thus the Mishnah cannot say that 'he is accursed.' He is accursed only when a woman, slave, or minor reads for him, either because he does not know it himself, or because he has appointed unsuitable emissaries to say it for him. In the Beraisa's case of Birkas ha'Mazon, on the other hand, it is clear that he does not know the blessings by heart, since (as mentioned above) he <i>always</i> has his household members recite Birkas ha'Mazon for him. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CUSTOMS OF 'HALEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Halachos regarding the original 
          institution of Halel may be inferred from the 
          vestiges of those practices remaining today.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Responding Halelukah at the beginning of 
               Halel teaches us to respond Halelukah at 
               the start of each Perek.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Responding at the end of the first Pasuk 
               teaches the Halachah (para. b) of our 
               Mishnah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Repeating Hodu LaShem teaches us that the 
               listeners said the opening of each Perek.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chanan b. Rava):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to 
               respond to the start of the Perakim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Repeating Ana Hash-m Hoshiyah Na reminds 
               us of the first Halachah of our Mishnah (a 
               minor dictating Halel to an adult who 
               repeats his words).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Repeating Ana Hash-m Hatzlichah Na teaches 
               us the last Halachah of our Mishnah 
               (permission to repeat).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> He says Baruch Haba and the listeners 
               respond with B'Shem Hash-m teaches Shome'a 
               k'Oneh.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SHOME'A' 'K'ONEH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is one who hears, but does not 
          respond, Yotzei?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya b. Aba):</font></b> Great people taught 
          that one is Yotzei (Shome'a k'Oneh).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The source for Shome'a k'Oneh was taught by R. 
          Shimon b. Pazi citing R. Yehoshua citing Bar 
          Kapara as the Pasuk which speaks of Yoshiyahu 
          as reading the Sefer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Sefer was read by Shafan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This teaches Shome'a k'Oneh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Yoshiyahu recited the words 
          which Shafan dictated?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Acha b. Yakov):</font></b> The Pasuk credits 
          Yoshiyahu for his humility in the face of 
          <i>hearing</i> the words.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>NOT SPLITTING THE VERSE 'BARUCH' 'HA'BA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One should not pause for a breath 
          between Baruch ha'Ba and b'Shem Hash-m in order 
          to make it clear that it is one thought, and 
          not a meaningless utterance of the Shem.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PAUSING IN 'YEHEI' 'SHEMEI' 'RABA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One should (also) not pause for a 
          breath between Rabah and Mevorach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Safra, reverently):</font></b> That is not 
          the same as Baruch ha'Ba b'Shem Hash-m (above) 
          since here he intends to complete the phrase.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>REPEATING THE 'PESUKIM' ACCORDING TO CUSTOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rebbi would repeat the Pesukim from Ana onward.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar b. Parta would repeat more Pesukim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What additional Pesukim did he 
          repeat?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> From Odecha onward.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'BERACHAH' OVER 'HALEL' ACCORDING TO CUSTOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The custom only determines the 
          Berachah at the conclusion, whereas prior to 
          Halel he must make a Beracha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is based on the teaching of R. Yehudah 
          citing Shmuel that one makes a Berachah on a 
          Mitzvah before its performance (Over 
          L'asiayasan).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does 'Over' come to mean 
               'before?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Nachman b. Yitzchak):</font></b> Pasuk in 
               Shmuel II.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Pasuk in Bereishis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Alternate Answer:</font></b> Pasuk in Michah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' ESROG OF 'SHEMITAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One who wishes to acquire an Esrog on Shemitah 
          must receive it as a gift.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>PURCHASING FROM AN 'AM' 'HA'ARETZ' ON 'SHEMITAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What if he does not wish to give it 
          as a gift?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Huna):</font></b> He absorbs its price into an 
          inflated price for the Lulav to encourage him 
          to give the Esrog.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't he purchase it outright?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since we must not give Shemitah money 
          to an Am ha'Aretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that we must not give him 
          more than the value of three meals before 
          Shabbos
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are thus assuming that he will spend 
               the money and not horde it for after 
               Shemitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one forgot and gave him money for the 
               Esrog, he must transfer the Kedushah of 
               the money (now in the hands of the Am 
               ha'Aretz) onto fruits in his possession.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A BLESSING FOR A MITZVAH 'OVER LA'ASIYASAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one recites a blessing for a Mitzvah 'Over la'Asiyasah' -- before he performs the Mitzvah. Why does the Gemara use this unusual phrase and not say simply 'Lifnei Asiyasah'? (See also Insights to Pesachim 7:2.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> (Hilchos Tefilin, DH Over) explains that '*Over* la'Asiyasah' means 'ahead of' the Mitzvah that will be performed, and not 'before' the Mitzvah will be performed. This means that one must first begin to become <i>involved</i> in the performance of the Mitzvah (such as by lifting the Shofar or Lulav, or by beginning to wrap the Tefilin around one's arm), and then one 'runs ahead' of the Mitzvah and recites the blessing immediately before the actual <i>fulfillment</i> of the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
This definition of 'Over' is evident from the verse that the Gemara cites as proof for the meaning of 'Over': 'And Achima'atz ran... and overtook (va'Ya'avor) the Kushi.' The verse says that the Kushi was ahead of Achima'atz, but Achima'atz overtook him and went before him. The second and third verses cited by the Gemara use the word 'Over' in a similar manner. Yakov first lined up his family before him, and then he passed before them. Similarly, after the nation lines up, the king passes before them to lead them (and he does not wait in front for the formation to form behind him). (See also Insights to Nidah 63:2.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#26) explains that the word 'Over' can mean either before <i>or</i> after (in the past tense, 'Avar'). The Gemara uses the unusual phraseology of 'Over la'Asiyasah' in order to teach that, b'Di'eved, one may recite the blessing on a Mitzvah even <i>after</i> the Mitzvah has been performed, as the <b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b> (Berachos 1:13) rules (in contrast to the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos Berachos 11:5).
</p><p>
(c) One of the Gemara's sources that the word 'Over' means 'before' is the verse, 'Their king passed (Over) before them, and Hash-m was at their head.' Perhaps the Gemara's use of the word 'Over' to describe the way a blessing must be recited alludes to another principle in the laws of blessings: every blessing must begin with a mention of the name of Hash-m and His kingship, as the Gemara teaches in Berachos (49a). This is expressed by the word 'Over,' which is used together with a mention of the name of Hash-m in the verse, 'and Hash-m was at their head.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) BUYING AND SELLING PRODUCE OF SHEVI'IS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that one may not buy an Esrog from an Am ha'Aretz during the Shemitah year. The Gemara explains that this is because one may not give money that is sanctified with Kedushas Shevi'is to an Am ha'Aretz. One is permitted, however, to pay up to three meals' worth of money to the Am ha'Aretz for the Esrog.
</p><p>
The Torah teaches that one may not conduct business with produce of Shevi'is, as it says, 'l'Ochlah' (Vayikra 25:6), from which the Gemara derives, 'l'Ochlah v'Lo l'Sechorah' (Avodah Zarah 62a) -- the produce of Shevi'is must be eaten and may not be traded. Why, then, is one permitted to give to an Am ha'Aretz the value of up to three meals for an Esrog of Shevi'is? For that matter, why is one permitted to purchase from a Chaver (scholar) any amount of fruit? The Torah forbids one from conducting business with produce of Shevi'is.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> addresses this question when he explains that the Torah does not actually forbid 'Sechorah' (commerce) with produce of Shevi'is. Rather, there is a Mitzvah to eat or consume the produce of Shevi'is, and to use up any money exchanged for such produce, before the time of Bi'ur arrives for each item. The way to use up money that has Kedushas Shevi'is is by exchanging it for edible fruit and treating that fruit with Kedushas Shevi'is. As long as the money with Kedushas Shevi'is is properly dealt with before the time of Bi'ur, there is no problem of Sechorah; that is, one may buy produce of Shevi'is as long as the money will be properly dealt with before the time of Bi'ur arrives.
</p><p>
A Chaver may be entrusted with such money because it is assumed that he will deal with it appropriately. An Am ha'Aretz is trusted only with up to three meals' worth of money of Kedushas Shevi'is, but not with more. When the amount of money is so small, it is assumed that he will certainly consume it before the time of Bi'ur arrives. (See end of Insights to Sukah 40:1 for a discussion of why the Am ha'Aretz is not suspected of misusing money with Kedushas Shevi'is.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b>, in his comments on Rashi's words, explains the prohibition of Sechorah in a slightly different way. The Torah prohibits one from buying anything which is not <i>consumed while it is used</i> ('Hana'aso u'Vi'uro Shaveh'; for example, any food item is 'Hana'aso u'Vi'uro Shaveh' because it is destroyed as it is eaten). For this reason, one may not use the proceeds of Shevi'is fruits to purchase a garment or a non-Kosher animal. (Although Rashi here appears to take a different approach as noted above (a), Rashi in Bechoros (12b, DH Vadai) explains the prohibition of Sechorah like the Ritva.)
</p><p>
The Ritva explains that since the Torah does not forbid all buying and selling of Shevi'is produce, but only the purchase of the wrong types of items, a Chaver is entrusted with the money of Shevi'is because he will not invest in the wrong types of items, while an Am ha'Aretz is not trusted. Why, then, is one permitted to give three meals' worth of money of Shevi'is to an Am ha'Aretz, if there is a fear that he will use the money to buy a garment or a non-Kosher animal? The answer is that since he receives only three meals' worth of money, he probably needs the money for food, and we may assume that he will use the money only for that purpose.
</p><p>
This approach differs from the first approach cited above in a number of ways. According to the first approach, the three-meal-limit is easily understood: the smaller the amount of money, the faster it will be spent. Also, according to the first approach the prohibition of Sechorah does not apply to the type of produce which has Kedushas Shevi'is but has no set time of Bi'ur (as described in Shevi'is 7:2). According to the Ritva's approach, the prohibition of Sechorah applies even to such items.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Ein, and cited by the <b>RASH</b> in Shevi'is 7:3) argues and says that there is an independent prohibition of Sechorah that forbids buying and selling produce of Shevi'is. The Torah expressly forbids trading with fruits of Shevi'is. It is an independent prohibition that is not due to the concern that one might not use up the money in time, or that one might purchase the wrong type of item with the money. For this reason, the prohibition applies even to buying and selling items of Shevi'is which have no set time of Bi'ur.
</p><p>
Why, then, is one permitted to pay three meals' worth of money to an Am ha'Aretz when he buys fruits of Shevi'is? Tosfos explains that the prohibition of Sechorah forbids <i>picking</i> the fruit for the purpose of selling it for profit. If one picks it for his own use, or if someone else sells what he picked, he does not transgress the prohibition against trading with fruits of Shevi'is.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Gemara here discusses fruit that was not picked in order to be sold for profit. Therefore, the prohibition of Sechorah does not apply. The only prohibition that applies is that of giving money that is sanctified with Kedushas Shevi'is to an Am ha'Aretz, which is prohibited out of concern that the Am ha'Aretz he will not observe the laws of Shemitah (which prohibit wasting the fruit, feeding it to his animal, paying back his debts with it, etc.). One may give, however, up to three meals' worth of money to the Am ha'Aretz, because it is assumed that he will buy only food with it, as the Ritva explains.
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> here and in Avodah Zarah (62a, DH Nimtza) adds that perhaps there is a second prohibition of Sechorah with produce of Shevi'is. Perhaps the Torah also prohibits one from buying produce of Shevi'is with intent to sell it in a distant market for a profit, like a trader who buys at a low price and sells at a higher one. Since the case of the Gemara here does not involve professional trading, the prohibition of Sechorah does not apply. The only concern is that the Am ha'Aretz will misuse the Shevi'is money, as mentioned above.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He treats those with Kedushas Shevi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The allowance to give him the value of three 
          meals is restricted to produce which we know 
          had been Hefker (if the produce was taken from 
          a protected area, one must not purchase any 
          amount from him at all).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Sheshes):</font></b> But the Beraisa 
          indicates that, when dealing with (the various) 
          produce (items listed which, presumably are) 
          from Hefker, we are not restricted in the 
          amount we may purchase from him!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Sheshes):</font></b> The allowance of the 
          Beraisa is also limited to the value of a day's 
          meals (Bichdei Man) as confirmed by Rabah bar 
          bar Chanah (that the allowance is Bichdei Man).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does the word Man come to 
               refer to meals?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk in Daniel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why only restrict the purchase of an 
          Esrog, the Lulav should have the same problem!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Lulav does not have Kedushas 
          Shevi'is since the Lulav cut for Sukos is from 
          the sixth year.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Esrog picked then is also, 
          surely, from the sixth year!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The status of the Esrog is determined 
          by the date in which it was picked.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'SHEMITAH' STATUS OF AN ESROG (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But even those (R. Gamliel and R. 
          Eliezer) who argue about the dating of the 
          Ma'aser status of an Esrog, agree that its 
          Shemitah status is determined by its budding, 
          not its picking!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Tana (who singles out the Esrog) 
          holds like the Rabanan who argue with Avtulmus 
          in the Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi cites Avtulmus who testified that 
               an Esrog follows its date of picking.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan voted that its date is the 
               same for Ma'aser and Shemitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who introduced Shemitah into 
               this discussion?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The emended version of Avtulmus' 
               testimony reads that an Esrog follows 
               picking for Ma'aser and budding for 
               Shemitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> It was regarding that statement that the 
               Rabanan voted to view the picking as the 
               date for both Ma'aser and Shemitah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>LULAV OF 'SHEMITAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A Lulav should not have Kedushas 
          Shevi'is!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We implied before that it only does not 
               have Kedushas Shevi'is because it is from 
               the sixth year.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But it should be like wood (which does not 
               have Kedushas Shevi'is, as taught in the 
               Beraisa), not like food!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Wood is only excluded from Kedushas 
          Shevi'is when it is being used for the coals it 
          produces, such that its benefit is not realized 
          as the time it is consumed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But there is are oil-trees which may 
          be lit as torches (the benefit being realized 
          as it is consumed)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> That does not change the normal 
          assumption for wood as firewood.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'KEDUSHAS' 'SHEVI'IS' OF FIREWOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The assumption that firewood is not subject to 
          Kedushas Shevi'is is actually a Machlokes 
          Tanaim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> Shevi'is wine may be not be used 
          for non- drinking purposes (soaking, cleaning).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> It may be used for those purposes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of the Tana 
          Kama?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The word l'Achlah limits the use of the 
          Shemitah produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> <i>Lachem</i> (l'Achlah) allows all uses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will Tana Kama interpret Lachem?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The permitted uses must be similar to 
          eating (the benefit being realized as it is 
          consumed, unlike soaking or washing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Yosi interpret l'Achlah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> To prohibit its use for (non-universal) 
          medicinal purposes (as derived in the Beraisa).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa learns the prohibition of 
               using Shemitah produce for non-universal 
               medicinal purposes from l'Achlah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps l'Achlah prohibits using 
               it for washing or soaking?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Lachem already permits those.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why permit (include) soaking and 
               washing while prohibiting (exclude) 
               medicinal purposes, and not the reverse?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A LULAV OF SHEVI'IS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks that one should not be permitted to purchase a Lulav of Shevi'is from an Am ha'Aretz, because the money that the Am ha'Aretz receives for the Lulav becomes sanctified with Kedushas Shevi'is.
</p><p>
In what way does Kedushas Shevi'is affect a Lulav, which is not an edible fruit? <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ta'ama) explains that Kedushas Shevi'is affects a Lulav in the event that one exchanges a Lulav of Shevi'is for money. The money attains the Lulav's Kedushas Shevi'is, and it must be used to buy only edible food and not a durable item (like a garment).
</p><p>
However, Rashi earlier (39a, DH Ein Mosrin) writes that the only reason why Sechorah (commerce) with fruits of Shevi'is is forbidden is because one is required to consume them ('l'Ochlah') or the money exchanged for them before the time of Bi'ur arrives. Accordingly, the reason why one may not buy a garment with money that has Kedushas Shevi'is (money that was used to buy fruit of Shevi'is) is because the garment will remain in existence past the time of the fruit's Bi'ur, as Rashi explains later (41a, DH u'Vikesh). According to this explanation, there is nothing wrong with conducting Sechorah, or purchasing garments, with a fruit of Shevi'is that has no time of Bi'ur.
</p><p>
Rashi later (40b, end of DH Shema Yigadel) writes that the time of Bi'ur of a fruit is determined by the time at which that fruit no longer is found naturally in the fields. A Lulav, however, remains on the tree perennially (it does not rot and fall off like fruit). Indeed, it is presumably for this reason that Rashi here (40a, DH Ta'ama) does not write that Kedushah of Shevi'is affects the Lulav in that the Lulav must be used up before its time of Bi'ur.
</p><p>
However, if the Lulav does not have any time of Bi'ur, then why is one prohibited to buy a garment with the money exchanged for a Lulav of Shevi'is? Since there is no time of Bi'ur for a Lulav itself, an object bought with its value should also be allowed to remain. One should be <i>permitted</i> to use the money to buy a non-edible item, according to Rashi. (<b>TOSFOS</b> 39a, DH she'Ein)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi maintains that a Lulav <i>does</i> have a time of Bi'ur. Although Lulav branches remain on the tree throughout the year, there are seasons during which no new sprouts are produced, and the older Lulav branches open up and their leaves spread out. When its leaves spread out, the Lulav is no longer fit to be used as a broom, its primary utilitarian purpose (Rashi DH Yatz'u). It is at that moment that the Lulav is no longer considered available in the natural environment.
</p><p>
If a Lulav has a time of Bi'ur, then why does Rashi not write that the practical application of Kedushas Shevi'is to a Lulav is that one must consume the Lulav before its time of Bi'ur? The answer is that Rashi's intention here is to explain why one may not give the value of a Lulav to an <i>Am ha'Aretz</i>. Rashi needs to show how the Am ha'Aretz will misuse the money that he receives from the sale of the Lulav (see Rashi to 39a, DH Ein Mosrin). Rashi therefore mentions a practical application with regard to the <i>value</i> of the Lulav.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, it seems that money exchanged for fruits of Shevi'is becomes sanctified with Kedushas Shevi'is <i>only</i> with regard to the requirement to consume that money before the time of Bi'ur (but not with regard to the other laws of Shevi'is). This explains why the Gemara is concerned only that the Am ha'Aretz will not consume the money before the time of Bi'ur arrives, and it is not concerned with any of the other ways that items of Shevi'is might be misused (such as being wasted (Pesachim 52b), being used to make a bandage or fed to an animal (Shevi'is 8:1), being used as payment for one's debts (Shevi'is 8:4 and Avodah Zarah 62a, as cited by Rashi later, 44b, DH Amar Lei)). Rashi maintains that the Kedushas Shevi'is is not transferred from the fruits onto the money ('Tofes Damav') with regard to the other prohibitions, but only with regard to the requirement of Bi'ur and the prohibition against giving more than three meals' worth of money to an Am ha'Aretz (which is related to the law of Bi'ur, according to Rashi). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> It is more likely to include soaking and 
               washing which are universally needed 
               activities.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which Tana taught that Shemitah 
          produce may not be used as medicine, fragrance 
          or to induce vomiting?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It must be R. Yosi, since Rabanan would 
          also prohibit soaking and washing.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>METHODS FOR REMOVING 'KEDUSHAS' 'SHEVI'IS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The Kedushah may only be 
          transferred when the Shemitah produce is sold 
          (not through Chilul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Both methods may be used.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. 
               Elazar?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The juxtaposition of Yovel (like 
               Shevi'is) to redemption through sale.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. 
               Yochanan?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Yovel is called Kodesh (which is 
               subject to both forms of redemption).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will R. Yochanan interpret 
               the juxtaposition of Yovel to redemption 
               through sale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It teaches the severe consequence 
               of tampering with the laws of Shemitah 
               (resulting in a forced sale of one's 
               property and, eventually, of one's self).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How will R. Elazar interpret the 
               Pasuk calling Yovel Kodesh?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The redemption onto money follows 
               the same pattern as by redemption of 
               Hekdesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports each, R. Elazar and R. 
          Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa seems to support R. Elazar 
               because it discusses the details of 
               redemption always in terms of Lakach, a 
               sale.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa supports R. Yochanan in 
               speaking of Chilul.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Meir):</font></b> The Chilul of Kedushas 
                    Shevi'is as well as Ma'aser Sheni may 
                    be made on live or slaughtered 
                    animals.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Chachamim):</font></b> Live animals may not be 
                    used lest a person raise the animals 
                    instead of bringing them to 
                    Yerushalayim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>(Rava):</font></b> This Machlokes applies only 
                    to male animals; but all agree that 
                    live females may not be used for 
                    Chilul lest he raise them.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHILUL' 'SHEVI'IS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ashi):</font></b> R. Elazar and R. Yochanan are only 
          arguing about Chilul of the actual Shemitah 
          produce (Pri Rishon) while the Pri Sheni can 
          surely be Mechulal by either means (purchase or 
          Chilul).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What of the multiple references 
               to Lakach in the Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They are only to be consistent 
               with the Reisha (regarding Pri Rishon).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa requires a person 
          with Shevi'is coins (which must be Pri Sheni) 
          to redeem them only through a purchase (but not 
          by Chilul)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> Rather, the Machlokes is by 
          Pri Sheni, whereas Pri Rishon must only be 
          through purchase.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What of the Beraisa which 
               teaches that Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheni 
               may be Mechulal on an animal (like R. 
               Yochanan that Shevi'is produce may be 
               redeemed through Chilul)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Shevi'is means <i>funds</i> of 
               Shevi'is.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If the Shevi'is were referring to actual 
               produce, then Ma'aser Sheni would also 
               mean actual produce, which, we know, may 
               only be Mechulal onto coins.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' WHEN THE LULAV IS TAKEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  During the Z'man ha'Bayis the Lulav was taken 
          all seven days, while outside it is taken only 
          on the first day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  After the Churban, R. Yochanan b. Zakai 
          instituted that it is taken all seven days 
          Zecher l'Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Another Zecher l'Mikdash is the prohibition of 
          Chadash for all of the 16th of Nisan.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'ZECHER' 'L'MIKDASH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for making a 
          Zecher l'Mikdash?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Navi complains that 
          none are 'Doresh' the memory of the Mikdash.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>'CHADASH' ON THE 16TH OF NISAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the 16th prohibited?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Lest an error be made when the Bais 
          ha'Mikdash is built (if the previous year it 
          became permitted in the morning, they might not 
          realize that the Omer is now the Matir for 
          Chadash, not the dawning day).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whenever the Mikdash will be built, 
          it will not be prohibited later than midday on 
          the 16th!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our concern is in the case where the 
          Mikdash is built on the night of the 16th, 
          resulting in a delay in the bringing of the 
          Omer until late on the 16th.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Nachman b. Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Yochanan b. 
          Zakai's concern was because he anticipated the 
          opinion of R. Yehudah who holds that mid'Oraisa 
          Chadash is prohibited the entire 16th.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: REMEMBERING THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah relates that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted a Mitzvah d'Rabanan to hold the Arba'as ha'Minim on all seven days of Sukos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara explains that this enactment was made as a commemoration for the Beis ha'Mikdash ('Zecher la'Mikdash'). What is the source for the concept of making a Zecher la'Mikdash? The Gemara cites the verse, 'For I shall raise up (A'aleh) for you a cure, and from your wounds I will heal you -- the word of Hash-m, for 'abandoned' did they call you: 'She is Tziyon -- no one remembers her'' (Yirmeyahu 30:17).
</p><p>
This verse, which teaches the concept of making a Zecher la'Mikdash, is cited only by the Gemara here and nowhere else. This implies that the verse specifically relates to the Arba'as ha'Minim. However, the verse makes no mention or hint of the Arba'as ha'Minim. In what way does the verse allude to the Arba'as ha'Minim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The word 'A'aleh' ('I shall raise up') is comprised of the first letter of each of the Arba'as ha'Minim: Esrog, Aravah, Lulav, Hadas. The Chachamim instituted that a Zecher la'Mikdash be made with the Arba'as ha'Minim in order to remind us that Hash-m will heal the wounds of Tziyon -- 'from your wounds I will heal you.'
</p><p>
A similar allusion to the Arba'as ha'Minim can be found in another verse: 'May my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, [O Zion,] if I do not raise up (A'aleh) Yerushalayim above my foremost joy (Rosh Simchasi)' (Tehilim 137:6). This verse also hints to the concept of remembering the Beis ha'Mikdash on Sukos through the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. 'Rosh Simchasi' alludes to the time of Simchah -- Zeman Simchasenu, or Sukos, during which the celebrations of the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah occurred when the Beis ha'Mikdash stood. The Chachamim instituted that a Zecher la'Mikdash be made by holding the Arba'as ha'Minim -- the Esrog, Aravah, Lulav, and Hadas, to which the word 'A'aleh' alludes -- on all seven days of Sukos. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(See also 'Peninim mi'Shulchan ha'Gra' by Rav Dov Eliach, Vayikra 23:40, who cites in the name of the Vilna Ga'on that the Arba'as ha'Minim are alluded to in the verse '*E'eleh* v'Samar, Ochazah b'Sansinav...' (Shir ha'Shirim 7:9). Actually, the original source for this allusion is the Zohar in Ra'aya Mehemna, end of Ki Setzei 283a, and Tikunei Zohar #13. We later found that Rav Reuven Margoliyos, in Sha'arei Zohar and Nitzotzei Zohar, notes the allusion from the verse cited by the Gemara here.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) BUILDING THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH ON YOM TOV OR AT NIGHT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah relates that at the same time that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai enacted that the Arba'as ha'Minim be held during the last six days of Sukos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, he also enacted that Chadash may not be eaten until the end of the day on the sixteenth of Nisan.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why Raban Yochanan ben Zakai made the second enactment if, mid'Oraisa, one is permitted to eat Chadash at the <i>beginning</i> of the day on the sixteenth of Nisan (at daybreak) when there is no Korban ha'Omer. The Gemara answers that if people would be allowed to eat Chadash this year (when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash or Korban ha'Omer) at the beginning of the day, then the following year -- when the Beis ha'Mikdash is rebuilt -- they might mistakenly think that Chadash is also permitted at the beginning of the day (even before the Korban ha'Omer is offered), when in truth Chadash is not permitted until the Korban ha'Omer is offered.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if this is the concern that motivated Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, then why did he enact that Chadash may not be eaten until the <i>end</i> of the day? If the rebuilding of Beis ha'Mikdash is completed on the sixteenth of Nisan, then Chadash indeed becomes permitted at the beginning of the day (since, at the beginning of the day, the Beis ha'Mikdash was not yet built and there was no Korban ha'Omer). If the Beis ha'Mikdash is completed on the fifteenth of Nisan, then Chadash becomes permitted at midday of the following day (the sixteenth of Nisan) when the Korban ha'Omer is offered. Raban Yochanan ben Zakai should have enacted that people wait only until <i>midday</i> of the sixteenth to eat Chadash.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was concerned that the Beis ha'Mikdash would be completed during the night after the fifteenth, and thus Chadash would not be permitted until the Korban ha'Omer is offered (at midday on the sixteenth), but, in practice, the Omer would not be offered until late in the day because there would not be enough time to prepare it by midday.
</p><p>
In its second answer, the Gemara suggests that his concern was that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be completed immediately before sunset at the end of the fifteenth, and there will not be enough time to prepare the Korban ha'Omer before midday of the sixteenth.
</p><p>
What is the difference between these two answers? Both answers express the exact same thing: Raban Yochanan ben Zakai's concern was that there will not be enough time between the completion of the Beis ha'Mikdash and midday of the sixteenth to prepare the Korban ha'Omer. In what way does the second answer differ from the first?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> explain that both answers indeed are the same. The words 'Iy Nami' here do not introduce a second answer (as they usually do), but they mean merely 'or.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites others who explain that 'close to sunset' does not refer to sunset after the fifteenth of Nisan, as the sixteenth enters. Rather, it refers to sunset after the fourteenth, as the fifteenth enters (that is, the sunset of Erev Yom Tov). Even though in such a case they would have an entire day from the time that the Beis ha'Mikdash is completed, since the day would be Yom Tov the emissaries of Beis Din would not be able to travel around Eretz Yisrael on that day to search for a place where the barley had ripened enough to be used for the Korban ha'Omer. Thus, they would not have time to prepare the Omer until after Yom Tov, and it would not be ready until late in the day on the sixteenth.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, there is a simple difference between the two answers of the Gemara. The first answer of the Gemara (the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built at night) applies only if we take into account the possibility that the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt by Hash-m Himself. The second answer (the Beis ha'Mikdash might be completed on the fifteenth of Nisan before sunset) does not take into account the possibility that the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built through a miracle (such that a Gezeirah would need to be made for such a concern). Rather, the only concern is that the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built through normal means, but there will not be enough time to prepare the Omer by midday of the sixteenth of Nisan. The Gemara gives the second answer in order to teach that even if the Beis ha'Mikdash is completed the day before, there still will not be enough time to prepare the Omer.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> asks the question that Rashi asks: why are the Rabanan concerned that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built on Yom Tov or at night? The Gemara in Shevuos (15b) states unequivocally that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built on Yom Tov or at night. (See Insights to Shevuos 15:3.)
</p><p>
The Me'iri's original answer to this question also explains the difference between the two answers given in the Gemara here. The Me'iri explains that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was concerned that a Beis Din To'eh (a mistaken Beis Din) will be responsible for the rebuilding of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Out of their zeal and fervor to build the Beis ha'Mikdash, they might overlook the Halachah and build it even when its construction is prohibited, such as on Yom Tov or at night. Such a Beis ha'Mikdash is valid, b'Di'eved, and may be used once it has been built.
</p><p>
The Me'iri in Shevuos (15b) suggests another answer. The Me'iri says that the Gemara in Shevuos and the Gemara here in Sukah actually argue about whether the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov and at night. The Gemara here maintains that the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov and at night, and the Gemara in Shevuos maintains that it may not.
</p><p>
The Me'iri's suggestions may answer the question on the Gemara here as well. The source from which the Gemara in Shevuos derives that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built at night is an explicit verse (Bamidbar 9:15). Another verse (Shemos 35:2) teaches that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built on Shabbos. However, there is no verse that explicitly states that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built on Yom Tov. It is assumed that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built on Yom Tov, since Yom Tov is also called 'Shabbos' (Rashi to Shevuos 15b, DH Ein b'Inyan).
</p><p>
However, it is still possible that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built on Yom Tov. The fact that Yom Tov is also called 'Shabbos' is not so obvious, and thus it is conceivable that a Beis Din To'eh might mistakenly overlook the Halachah and build the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov (according to the Me'iri's first approach). According to the Me'iri's second approach, the Gemara here maintains that the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov; it disagrees with the Gemara in Shevuos.
</p><p>
The first answer of the Gemara here says that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was concerned that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built at night -- which can happen only if it is built by Hash-m Himself, because an explicit verse, which everyone knows, teaches that the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built at night.
</p><p>
The second answer of the Gemara is that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was concerned that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built on Yom Tov, on the fifteenth of Nisan, before sunset. Even if it is not built by Hash-m, it could be built by man on that day -- either because of a Beis Din To'eh, or because the Gemara follows an opinion that the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov (but not on Shabbos).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns this from the words Ad 
               Etzem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Ad includes the day itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we find that R. Yehudah states 
          his position as <i>juxtaposed</i> to that of R. 
          Yochanan, implying that he argues!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah misunderstood the position 
          of R. Yochanan b. Zakai (erroneously defining 
          'Hiskin' as meaning that the prohibition is 
          d'Rabanan only).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah does say Hiskin!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means that he then taught the proper 
          interpretation of the Pasuk.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' LULAV ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  When the first Yom Tov falls on Shabbos the 
          people must bring their Lulavim before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The next day each one must make sure to take 
          his own, since the Chachamim taught that one 
          may only be Yotzei with his own.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The rest of the week on may be Yotzei with a 
          borrowed Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> If one accidentally carried his 
          Lulav on the first Yom Tov he is Patur from a 
          Chatas because he was engrossed in the 
          performance of a Mitzvah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE'S OWN LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this 
          requirement?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Rabanan interpret u'Lekachtem 
          Lachem to exclude a borrowed or stolen Lulav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It may be transferred as a gift.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is seen in the incident of R. Gamliel 
               who gave his expensive Lulav to the 
               Chachamim who were with him on board (who 
               then gave it back to him).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did we need to be taught 
               that they gave it back to R. Gamliel?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> To teach that a gift given on 
               condition of its return is a valid gift 
               (if subsequently returned) as we see was 
               Rava's practice.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why do we need to be taught that 
               R. Gamliel spent 1000 Zuz on his Esrog and 
               Lulav?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> To teach us how precious the 
               Mitzvah was in his eyes.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>7) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACTIVITIES PERFORMED WITH LULAV IN HAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar b. Ameimar):</font></b> Father would pray with his 
          Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that one must 
          not hold anything of Kedushah in his hand 
          during Tefilah (and Shmuel extends this to 
          anything which he would be afraid to drop)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is no Mitzvah to hold those items 
          (unlike the Lulav which thus does not create a 
          distraction).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa-R. Elazar b. Tzadok):</font></b> The custom of 
          the people of Yerushalayim was to carry the 
          Lulav through every task with the exception of 
          Nesiyas Kapayim and learning Torah, due to 
          their love of Mitzvos.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: 'NICHUM AVELIM' DURING YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records several statements that demonstrate how beloved the Mitzvos are to the Chachamim. Among these statements is that of Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who says that the practice of the people of Yerushalayim is 'to carry their Lulavim in their hands while they leave their homes, walk to the synagogues, read the Shema, pray... go to visit the sick, and go to comfort mourners....' They express their love for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim by holding the Arba'as ha'Minim wherever they go.
</p><p>
One part of Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok's statement is difficult to understand. Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok says that the people of Yerushalayim carry their Lulavim with them even when they 'go to comfort mourners.' However, the law is that if one's close relative dies shortly before Yom Tov, the seven-day period of mourning ('Shiv'ah') ceases at the arrival of Yom Tov (Moed Katan 19a, Shulchan Aruch OC 548:7), and thus there is no Mitzvah to comfort mourners during the festival. Similarly, if one's close relative dies during Yom Tov, the laws of Shiv'ah are suspended until after the festival departs (Shulchan Aruch OC 548:1), and thus there is no Mitzvah to comfort mourners until after the festival. What does Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok mean when he says that the people of Yerushalayim hold their Lulavim in their hands when they go to comfort mourners?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) When the Yerushalmi here cites the statement of Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok, it indeed omits the words 'ul'Nachem Avelim' -- 'to comfort mourners.' 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHIBOLEI HA'LEKET</b> (#368) cites this question in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b>. The Ge'onim answer that while there is no obligation of Nichum Avelim during the festival, one still is permitted to visit a mourner in order to help alleviate his distress and raise his spirits (see Shulchan Aruch OC 548:6). It is to this Mitzvah that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok refers when he says that the people of Yerushalayim carry their Lulavim in their hands when they go to comfort mourners.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. YOSI EXEMPTS FROM A 'CHATAS' ONE WHO CARRIES A LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yosi's exemption applies only prior 
          to fulfilling the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But there is never a point of 
          carrying prior to fulfilling the Mitzvah, since 
          one is Yotzei as soon as one picks it up!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> R. Yosi was speaking where he 
          picked it up upside down.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Yosi was speaking where one 
          took the Lulav by means of a Kli.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But Rava holds that indirect 
               Lekichah is called Lekichah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> That holds only in a respectable 
               manner (like draping one's hand with a 
               cloth).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER EXAMPLES OF R. YOSI'S 'PETUR' FOR 'TA'AH' 'BI'DEVAR' 'MITZVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Huna):</font></b> R. Yosi also exempted one who ate an 
          Olah thinking it was a Chatas.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> That is not news, that is 
               identical to the Petur of our Mishnah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We might have limited the Petur of 
               Ta'ah bi'Devar Mitzvah to where he is 
               presently fulfilling a Mitzvah (such as 
               Netilas Lulav, but not eating the Olah, 
               which is not a Mitzvah at all).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But in the Beraisa R. Yosi teaches 
          that one who accidentally slaughters an 
          unchecked Tamid is Chayav!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is exceptional as it is close to 
          Meizid (as that Beraisa has been qualified as 
          speaking where he negligently took the animal 
          from the unchecked pen).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' PROTECTING THE LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A woman may return the Lulav to its water on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It may be placed back in its 
          water on Shabbos, but no water may be added, 
          while on Yom Tov water may be added and on Chol 
          ha'Moed the water may be changed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A boy who knows how to wave the Lulav is 
          obligated.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN AND LULAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is it not obvious that she can handle 
          the Lulav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have prohibited her handling 
          of the Lulav since she is not obligated it its 
          waving it might be Muktzeh for her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CHILD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa lists the obligation point for 
          Lulav, Tzitzis, Tefilin, Torah and Shema.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does his father teach him?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Torah Tzivah and the first Pasuk 
               of Shema.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa lists when a child's body does not 
          render Tum'ah, when his hands do not create 
          Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  When doubts arise, a child who can answer when 
          asked is Tameh in Reshus ha'Yachid and Tahor in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he is established in Nesi'as Kapayim he may 
          be given Terumah publicly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If he is able to control the knife, he may 
          slaughter (when he is under adult supervision- 
          R. Huna).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Once he can eat a k'Zayis of grain he 
          discharges are malodorous and Tefilah must be 
          distanced from them (assuming that he can eat 
          the k'Zayis within Achilas Peras- R. Chisda).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar R. Yeiva):</font></b> One must distance 
          oneself in prayer from an adult's discharges 
          even if he presently cannot eat a k'Zayis 
          within Achilas Peras (Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Once a child can eat a k'Zayis of roasted meat 
          he is included in the Korban Pesach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Once he can differentiate 
               between edibles and non-edibles.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He throws away pebbles but takes nuts.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK LULAV VA'ARAVAH</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MISHNAH:' THE FREQUENCIES FOR THE 'MITZVOS' OF SUKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Lulav and Aravah are taken six or seven days 
          (depending on when Shabbos falls).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Halel and Simchah are on all eight days 
          (including Shemini Atzeres).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Sukah and Nisuch ha'Mayim are all seven days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Instruments, like the Chalil, are used for five 
          days of Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah, (or six, if 
          the first day is Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Lulav is taken seven days when the first 
          day is Shabbos, while if it is on a different 
          day of the week the Lulav is only taken six 
          days (not on Shabbos Chol ha'Moed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  The Aravah is taken for seven days when the 
          seventh day (Hoshana Rabah) is Shabbos 
          (otherwise six days).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The Lulavim were brought Erev Shabbos to the 
          Mikdash and were received by the Chazanim and 
          placed on the Itztaba (while the elders used 
          the Lishkah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The People were taught to relinquish their 
          ownership of their Lulavim in favor of whomever 
          picked up that Lulav the next day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The dangerous scuffle which ensued in the 
          Mikdash when people went to claim a Lulav led 
          Beis Din to order people to wave the Lulav at 
          home, instead.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A CHILD'S OBLIGATION TO FULFILL THE MITZVAH OF LULAV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara rules that a Katan (minor) who knows how to shake the Lulav properly is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier, however, teaches that one fulfills the Mitzvah when he merely picks up the Lulav. Why, then, must a Katan be able to <i>shake</i> the Lulav in order to be obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav? He should be obligated if he merely can <i>lift</i> it.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (Chidushim) proposes that the requirement to <i>shake</i> the Lulav is a Mitzvah mid'Oraisa derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (This is implied by the Mishnah (29b, as explained by the Gemara on 32b) that says that the Lulav must extend at least one Tefach beyond the height of the Hadasim and Aravos 'in order to shake it.') When the Gemara says that as soon as one picks up the Lulav he fulfills the Mitzvah mid'Oraisa, it means that he fulfills the Mitzvah only if he is <i>fit</i> to shake the Lulav. A young child or a sick person who is not physically able to shake the Lulav cannot fulfill the Mitzvah, because of the principle 'Kol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves.' (This approach of the Chasam Sofer is very novel and requires further elucidation.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU MANO'ACH</b> (Hilchos Shevisas Asor 2:10) writes that the Rabanan instituted an obligation for a Katan to perform a Mitzvah for the purpose of Chinuch only when he performs that Mitzvah completely in accordance with the way an adult performs it. If the child does not perform the Mitzvah the way an adult performs it, then it is not considered Chinuch. (See also <b>BRISKER RAV</b> to Erchin 2a who reaches the same conclusion.) 
</p><p>
Perhaps the reason for this is because a Katan is required to perform Mitzvos so that he learn how to fulfill the Mitzvos when he becomes an adult. Training him to perform only part of the details of the Mitzvah will not achieve this goal. On the contrary, he will learn how to perform the Mitzvah incorrectly, and 'Shabeshta, Keivan d'Al, Al' -- once a child learns a mistake, the mistake stays with him (Pesachim 112a, Bava Basra 21a). Therefore, the Rabanan obligated a Katan to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav only when he is able to shake the Lulav properly. (See also Insights to Erchin 2:2.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>LULAV ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is Lulav in the Mikdash not waved 
          also on Shabbos Chol ha'Moed (what Melachah are 
          we protecting)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> It is prohibited lest he carry 
          the Lulav out to receive instruction in its 
          use.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The same Gezeirah holds by Shofar and 
               Megilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A person might take them out for 
               instruction.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then Lulav should be prohibited on 
          the first day, as well, lest he carry it out!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There is no concern since Rabanan 
               instituted, for safety, that the Lulavim 
               should be kept home (which will remind 
               people not to carry them out).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But what about before the 
               Takanah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The first day was not subject to a 
          Gezeirah since it is Chashuv (because it 
          applies everywhere unlike the other days when 
          the Lulav is d'Oraisa only in the Mikdash).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then there should not be Gezeirah on 
          the first day nowadays, either (it is 
          Chashuv)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are not certain which is the first 
          day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then let those in Eretz Yisrael wave 
          the Lulav on the first day which falls on 
          Shabbos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, they do (but see 44a for the 
          Maskanah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is supported by resolving our Mishnah 
               (where they brought their Lulavim to the 
               Mikdash before Shabbos) and the Beraisa 
               (where they brought them to the Beis 
               ha'Kneses).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One must speak when the Mikdash was 
               standing, and one after the Churban!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>LULAV 'B'GEVULIN' ON THE FIRST DAY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence the obligation to take the 
          Lulav on the first day even outside of the 
          Mikdash?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa derives it as one of the 
          Derashos from the Pasuk u'Lekachtem Lachem...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need a Derashah to permit 
          Lulav on Shabbos (what Melachah is there)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We need it to permit Machshirei Lulav 
          (in accordance with R. Eliezer who permits 
          cutting, etc., in preparation for the Mitzvah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is R. Eliezer's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The extra word BaYom in our Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will Rabanan (who disagree with 
          the permission taught by R. Eliezer) interpret 
          BaYom?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It restricts Lulav to daytime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Eliezer learn that 
          limit?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is implied by the word Yamim at the 
          end of the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How will Rabanan interpret that 
          Yamim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> To the contrary, that Yamim would lead 
          us (by linking it to Sukah) to apply Lulav by 
          day and night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Maybe Sukah is only by day?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa asserts that it is day and 
          night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Maybe Yamim refers only to 
               daytime (by linking Sukah to Yamim by 
               Lulav)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Yamim links Sukah to the seven 
               days of Miluim (which were day and night).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why link Sukah to Miluim, link 
               it rather to Lulav!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is more logical to link it to 
               another Mitzvah which is all day long 
               (unlike Lulav which is only once a day).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it is more reasonable to 
               link it to another Mitzvah which is 
               permanent (Lulav, unlike the one-time 
               Miluim)?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CARRYING FOUR AMOS IN 'RESHUS HA'RABIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rabah says that the Rabanan decreed that one may not hold the Lulav on a day of Sukos which occurs on Shabbos, lest one carry it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim in order to bring it to an expert to learn how to perform the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> asks why Rabah says that the Rabanan were concerned only that one might carry the Lulav four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim ('Ha'avarah'), and he does not say that they were concerned that one might carry it from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim ('Hotza'ah'). Rashi answers that the transgression of carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is more common than the transgression of Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, because it applies to a Lulav that is resting anywhere, even in a Karmelis. (If one picks up a Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he transgresses only Ha'avarah and not Hotza'ah, since the Lulav was not brought from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim.)
</p><p>
Rashi explains further that even if the Lulav is in one's home (a Reshus ha'Yachid), there is more cause for concern that he will transgress Ha'avarah than Hotza'ah. This is because he might pick up the Lulav with no intent to carry it outside and then change his mind and walk out with it. In that case, he will not be liable for Hotza'ah because he performed no Akirah with intent to take the Lulav into Reshus ha'Rabin. He will be liable, however, for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(a) When one picks up the Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it into Reshus ha'Rabim, why is he liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim? One transgresses Ha'avarah only when he performs both an Akirah and a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. In this case, he performs the Akirah in a Karmelis and not in Reshus ha'Rabim, and thus he should not be liable for Ha'avarah. (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, Shabbos 5b; see Insights to Eruvin 34:2:b.)
</p><p>
(b) It is even more difficult to understand why one is liable for Ha'avarah in the second case that Rashi mentions, where one picks up the Lulav in his home in order to shake it and then decides to walk out with it into Reshus ha'Rabim. Just as one is not liable for Hotza'ah (bringing the Lulav from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim) since he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid with intent to bring it into Reshus ha'Rabim, he should also not be liable for Ha'avarah in such a case, since he did no Akirah for the sake of Ha'avarah (see Shabbos 153a). (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Ya'avirenu)
</p><p>
(c) If Rashi maintains, as his words imply, that one does not need to do an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, then he should explain the Gemara as the <b>RA'AVAD</b> does (as cited by the <b>ME'IRI</b>). The Ra'avad explains that since a person normally picks up a Lulav in his house, the Rabanan were concerned that he might take his Lulav from his house to the house of the expert. In that case, he will carry the Lulav from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid and thus he will not be liable for Hotza'ah, but he <i>will</i> be liable for carrying the Lulav four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. This is why Rabah's only concern is that the Lulav will be carried four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, and he is not concerned that the Lulav will be carried from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RE'EM</b> (in his notes to the <b>SEMAG</b>, cited by the <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b> here) and <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> explain the words of Rashi as follows:
</p><p>
Rashi understands that the expert to whom the person might bring his Lulav is in Reshus ha'Rabim and not in Reshus ha'Yachid. Rashi maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim only when he does both an Akirah and Hanachah <i>in Reshus ha'Rabim</i>. Accordingly, when the expert is in Reshus ha'Rabim and one brings his Lulav from its place in Reshus ha'Rabim and sets it down next to the expert, he is liable for Ha'avarah because he has performed Akirah and Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. The reason he is liable in a case in which he picks up the Lulav from a Karmelis, even though he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim, is because it is natural for a person who walks a moderate distance to stop for a moment to rest. At the moment that he stops, the item he carries is considered to have come to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, and when he starts to walk again he does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim. When he reaches the expert and sets the Lulav down, he does a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim and becomes liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim. This answers the first question.
</p><p>
(b) The second question can be answered the same way. Rashi does not mean to say that when one does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid without intent to bring the Lulav out of his home, he will still be liable for Ha'avarah if he walks four Amos with it in Reshus ha'Rabim. Rather, Rashi means that one will be liable for walking four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim because, at some point after his arrival in Reshus ha'Rabim, he will probably stop to rest. When he starts to walk again, he does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim. However, he is not liable for Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, because he did not do the Akirah with intent to bring the Lulav outside to Reshus ha'Rabim. There is no concern that he will stop to rest in his <i>house</i> and then start to walk again with intent to go outside (which would constitute a proper Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid), because one normally walks only a short distance in his house until he reaches the threshold and has no need to stop and rest before he exits.
</p><p>
(c) With regard to why Rashi does not explain as the Ra'avad does (that the concern is that one might carry his Lulav from his house to the house of the expert and walk four Amos with it in Reshus ha'Rabim), apparently Rashi maintains that in such a case one does not transgress the Isur of Ha'avarah. According to Rashi, in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, one must do an Akirah (and Hanachah) in Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, if he stops to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim on his way to the expert he will be liable for both Hotza'ah and Ha'avarah. If he does not stop to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, he will be liable for neither Hotza'ah nor Ha'avarah. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b>, who questions Rashi's explanation (see question (b) above), does not understand Rashi in this manner. Tosfos understands that Rashi maintains that if one does an Akirah in a Karmelis or Reshus ha'Yachid, one <i>can</i> be liable for carrying the item four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (even if he does not stop to rest and subsequently perform a new Akirah), regardless of whether or not he intended to carry the object in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picked it up.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, Rashi makes two important points. First, he asserts that one can be liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim even if his act of Akirah was not in Reshus ha'Rabim but in Reshus ha'Yachid. Second, he teaches that one can be liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah was not done with intent to carry the object through Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
Tosfos, who questions Rashi's explanation, seems to take issue only with Rashi's second point, as he does not question the first point. According to Tosfos, as long as the person intends to carry the object in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picks it up, he will be liable for Ha'avarah, even if he picks it up in a Karmelis or Reshus ha'Yachid. (This is also evident from <b>TOSFOS</b> to Eruvin 33a, DH v'Ha, and 34a, DH v'Amai; see <b>TOTZA'OS CHAYIM</b> at the beginning of Maseches Shabbos.) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (mentioned in question (c) above) clearly follows this opinion as well. The <b>ME'IRI</b> also mentions this opinion in Shabbos (97b).
</p><p>
In conclusion, there are three opinions with regard to the prohibition of carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim:
</p><p>
1. <b>RASHI</b>, according to the <b>RE'EM</b>, maintains that one is not liable for Ha'avarah unless he performs both the Akirah and the Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah was not done in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, who offers a novel but simple interpretation of the Gemara, rules that one is liable even if neither the Akirah nor the Hanachah were done in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The word Teshvu links it 
               definitively to Miluim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ARAVAH OVERRIDES SHABBOS ON THE SEVENTH DAY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should the Aravah override 
          Shabbos (and not be subject to the Gezeirah 
          applied to Lulav)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Gezeirah was not 
          applied to Aravah to publicize its Torah 
          origins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then the same should hold by the 
          Lulav!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Lulav is subject to the Gezeirah 
          (taught by Rabah, lest one carry it out for 
          instruction).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The same should hold for the Aravah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Aravah is brought to the Mikdash by 
          agents of Beis Din and used by the Kohanim, for 
          whom we do not need to apply Gezeiros (unlike 
          Lulav which is taken by all).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then the Aravah should override 
          Shabbos whenever it falls, not only on the 
          seventh day!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It would then overshadow Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then let it override Shabbos on the 
          first day (not the last) just like Lulav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah origins would not be 
          publicized thereby (people would attribute the 
          bringing of the Aravah to the permission 
          associated with Lulav).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Aravah should override Shabbos on 
          another day?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Once we removed it from the first day, 
          we give it another day of distinction.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARAVAH OVERRIDING SHABBOS NOWADAYS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Let Aravah override nowadays on 
          Shabbos, as well (to publicize its Torah 
          origins)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are not certain which is the first 
          day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What of those in Eretz Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (b. Hedya):</font></b> The seventh day of Sukos may 
          never fall on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravin and his entourage):</font></b> It happens, 
          and it does not override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then again, why not?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> The Mitzvah of Aravah is to 
          lean it against the Mizbe'ach, which cannot be 
          done nowadays.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> But our Mishnah groups Lulav 
          and Aravah together, presumably, because they 
          are both waved!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> That grouping is not 
          compelling.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah later reports 
          that they walked around the Mizbe'ach once each 
          day, and seven times on the last day, 
          presumably with the Aravah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> No, it is with the Lulav, 
          while the Aravah is leaning against the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Nachman (citing Rabah b. 
          Avuha) taught that they went around with the 
          Aravah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> Indeed he holds that, but I 
          hold that they went around with the Lulav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This Machlokes is between R. Elazar (with 
               the Lulav) and R. Shmuel b. Nasan citing 
               R. Chaninah (with the Aravah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nachman citing Rabah b. Avuha agrees 
               with Aravah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rava reported to R. Yitzchak b. Rabah bar 
               bar Chanah that his father held it was 
               with the Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the implication of the reported 
          incident (where the Baisusim buried the Aravos) 
          is that they waved the Aravah (not only leaned 
          it against the Mizbe'ach)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, this refutes R. Yosef.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Then the Netilah should override 
          Shabbos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since those outside of Eretz Yisrael do 
          not override Shabbos (because of the doubt 
          regarding the date), those in Eretz Yisrael 
          refrain, as well.
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ERETZ YISRAEL FOLLOWING CHUTZ LA'ARETZ (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But we see from Lulav that those in 
          Eretz Yisrael are not restricted by the 
          limitations of those outside!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Lulav does not override in Eretz 
          Yisrael, either.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But then the Beraisos are still 
               contradictory!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  One states that they brought their 
                    Lulavim to the Beis ha'Mikdash and 
                    one says that they brought them to 
                    the Beis ha'Kneses.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> We had resolved this by stating that 
                    one was at the time of the Mikdash 
                    and one after.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>But we are now asserting that even in 
                    Eretz Yisrael the Lulav does not 
                    override Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One Beraisa speaks in the Mikdash 
               and one speaks outside of the Mikdash (but 
               Lulav is not Docheh anywhere after the 
               Churban).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why do we single out Lulav 
          for a seven-day Zecher l'Mikdash but we only 
          make a one-day Zecher l'Mikdash for the Mitzvah 
          of Aravah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> There is a Zecher to the Aravah 
          in the daily use of the Lulav (with its 
          Aravos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> That Aravah does not 
          represent its Mitzvah, since it is only part of 
          Lulav!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He must pick the Lulav up a second 
               time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We have never seen such a 
               thing!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zevid citing Rava):</font></b> Lulav is 
          d'Oraisa (and hence gets a seven-day Zecher) 
          whereas Aravah is d'Rabanan (and gets only one 
          day).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to whom is Aravah 
          d'Rabanan!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> According to Aba Shaul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But he learns it from the plural 
               Arvei!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is according to Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But they hold that Aravah is a 
               Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (as taught by R. 
               Asi citing R. Yochanan citing R. Nechunya) 
               not d'Rabanan!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zevid citing Rava):</font></b> Lulav has its 
          basis in the Torah outside of the Mikdash (and 
          thus gets a seven day Zecher) whereas the 
          Mitzvah of Aravah outside of the Mikdash has no 
          basis in the Torah (it is Halachah l'Moshe 
          mi'Sinai only in the Mikdash).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'CHIYUV' FOR ALL 'KOHANIM' TO DO 'HAKAFAH' WITH ARAVOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> Even the Ba'alei Mumin would 
          press in to fulfil the Mitzvah of surrounding 
          the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Who said this Halachah 
          (presumably asking who said that there is an 
          obligation for each Kohen to do Hakafah)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How could R. Yochanan have asked 
               this, seeing that he, himself, taught this 
               Halachah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, he was asking who taught 
               that the Mitzvah is with Netilah and not 
               just setting Aravos up along the Mizbe'ach 
               (something which could be done by just one 
               Kohen)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He further questioned as to who said that 
               Ba'alei Mumin are also obligated?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua b. Levi argued over 
          whether the Aravah is a Yesod Nevi'im or a 
          Minhag Nevi'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  We may conclude that R. Yochanan is of the 
          opinion that it is Yesod Nevi'im since R. Avahu 
          cited his opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira to R. Avahu):</font></b> But it was R. 
          Yochanan who taught that Aravah is Halachah 
          l'Moshe mi'Sinai!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu, after a moment of stunned 
          silence):</font></b> R. Yochanan referred to the fact that 
          in Bavel the Halachos mi'Sinai were forgotten 
          and were restored (Yesod) by the Nevi'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan taught that the Torah 
          in its entirety is to be found among the 
          scholars of Bavel!?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'LO TISGODEDU' -- DIFFERENT CUSTOMS IN DIFFERENT PLACES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara continues its lengthy discussion about the obligation to fulfill the Mitzvah of Lulav on a day of Sukos that occurs on Shabbos. The Mishnah (42b) says that when the first day of Yom Tov occurs on Shabbos, the Mitzvah of Lulav applies, but when any other day of Sukos occurs on Shabbos, the Mitzvah does not apply (even in the Beis ha'Mikdash).
</p><p>
The Gemara (43a) explains that the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah not to hold the Lulav on Shabbos, lest one carry it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim in order to bring it to an expert to learn how to perform the Mitzvah. This Gezeirah does not apply on the first day of Sukos (even though the Rabanan have the authority to enact that a Mitzvas Aseh not be performed). That day is accorded special status, because on that day the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa even in the 'Gevulin.' During the rest of the festival, the Mitzvah is only mid'Rabanan in the 'Gevulin,' and therefore the Rabanan applied the Gezeirah during those days of Sukos even in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
This difference between the first day of Sukos and the other days applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the people are not expert in determining the new month, the Mitzvah of Lulav is not performed on Shabbos even on the first day of Yom Tov (because of the doubt whether that day is Yom Tov).
</p><p>
However, the Gemara here (44a) concludes that nowadays even in Eretz Yisrael the Lulav is not held on the first day of Sukos when it occurs on Shabbos. Since the people outside of Eretz Yisrael do not hold the Lulav on that day, the people in Eretz Yisrael also do not hold the Lulav on that day. <b>RASHI</b> explains that this practice was enacted because of 'Lo Tisgodedu,' the Torah's requirement that different groups of Jews not have different practices.
</p><p>
The application of the principle of 'Lo Tisgodedu' in this context is difficult to understand. In Yevamos (14a), Rava and Abaye disagree about the extent of the application of 'Lo Tisgodedu.' Rava maintains that it applies only to a <i>single</i> Beis Din in a <i>single</i> city; that is, two judges in one Beis Din may not follow two different practices because of 'Lo Tisgodedu.' Abaye maintains that even two Batei Din in one community may not have two different practices. In two different communities, though, they may have two different practices.
</p><p>
According to both Rava and Abaye, why does 'Lo Tisgodedu' apply in the case of the Gemara here? The Gemara's case involves two completely different places -- Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and thus 'Lo Tisgodedu' should not apply even according to Abaye.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARASHDAM</b> (YD 153) and the <b>NETZIV</b> explain that even though the actual prohibition of 'Lo Tisgodedu' does not apply in such circumstances, nevertheless it would be improper for the Rabanan to make an enactment l'Chatchilah that gives different practices to different groups of Jews. Accordingly, when the Rabanan enacted that the Lulav not be held on Shabbos, they included Jews in all places in that enactment. Other practices of Jews of one place which Jews of another place do not share are not practices that were enacted by the Rabanan. Rather, they are Minhagim, customs, that developed in one place and did not develop in the same way in another place. The prohibition of 'Lo Tisgodedu' does not apply to such customs.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KAPOS TEMARIM</b> explains that the people outside of Eretz Yisrael used to come to Yerushalayim during the festivals to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Aliyah l'Regel.' While they were in Yerushalayim, they were bound to observe their normal practices and not hold the Lulav on Shabbos. Their practice, however, contradicted the practice of the native residents of Yerushalayim, who held the Lulav on Shabbos. The Rabanan instituted that the residents of Yerushalayim not hold the Lulav on Shabbos so that there would not be two divergent practices in one city. The Gemara, therefore, follows the opinion of Abaye, who says that in one city the principle of 'Lo Tisgodedu' applies.
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> asks that this answer is not consistent with the context of the Gemara's discussion, which refers to the period <i>after</i> the Churban of the Beis ha'Mikdash. After the Churban, the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel no longer applied, and thus there was no reason why Jews from outside of Eretz Yisrael would be in Yerushalayim during Sukos such that 'Lo Tisgodedu' should have posed a problem.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> in Yevamos (14a) suggests that mid'Oraisa, the law of 'Lo Tisgodedu' applies only in the cases that Rava and Abaye describe, respectively. The Rabanan, however, have the authority to enact an Isur d'Rabanan of 'Lo Tisgodedu' in order to prevent variant practices even in two different communities when they see fit, such as in this case.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) OBSERVING TWO DAYS OF YOM TOV IN ERETZ YISRAEL BECAUSE OF 'LO TISGODEDU'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (43a) explains that the enactment not to hold the Lulav on Shabbos does not apply on the first day of Yom Tov. That day is accorded special status, because on that day the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa even in the 'Gevulin.' During the rest of the festival, the Mitzvah is only mid'Rabanan in the 'Gevulin,' and therefore the Rabanan applied the Gezeirah during those days of Sukos even in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
This difference between the first day of Sukos and the other days applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the people are not expert in determining the new month, the Mitzvah of Lulav is not performed on Shabbos even on the first day of Yom Tov (because of the doubt whether that day is Yom Tov).
</p><p>
The Gemara here (44a) concludes that nowadays even in Eretz Yisrael the Lulav is not held on the first day of Sukos when it occurs on Shabbos. Since the people outside of Eretz Yisrael do not hold the Lulav on that day, the people in Eretz Yisrael also do not hold the Lulav on that day. <b>RASHI</b> explains that this practice was enacted because of 'Lo Tisgodedu,' the Torah's requirement that different groups of Jews not have different practices.
</p><p>
If the Rabanan were concerned that the Jews in Eretz Yisrael and the Jews in Chutz la'Aretz not have different practices -- even though the practice in Chutz la'Aretz differs only because of the doubt about which day is Yom Tov -- then why did they not also ordain that the Jews in Eretz Yisrael must observe two days of Yom Tov, just as the Jews in Chutz la'Aretz must observe two days of Yom Tov? (<b>MAHARASHDAM</b> YD 153, <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Lulav 7:17)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> answers that there is a difference between changing the practice in Eretz Yisrael by instituting a passive, 'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh' practice, and changing it by instituting an active, 'Kum v'Aseh' practice. In order to standardize the practice of Jews throughout the world, the Rabanan may uproot a practice by instituting a 'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh' enactment that the people not hold a Lulav on Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, the Rabanan do not institute an active practice, a 'Kum v'Aseh,' such as the requirement for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael to observe a second day of Yom Tov.
</p><p>
(b) Even in Eretz Yisrael, there is a reason not to hold the Lulav on the first day of Sukos when it occurs on Shabbos. Rabah says that the Rabanan decreed that, even in Eretz Yisrael, on any of the remaining six days of Sukos that occurs on Shabbos, one may not hold the Lulav lest one carry it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim in order to bring it to an expert to learn how to perform the Mitzvah. The Rabanan did not apply their enactment to the first day of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael only because of the special status of that day (it is the only day on which the Mitzvah of Lulav is mid'Oraisa everywhere, even in the 'Gevulin').
</p><p>
However, after the Churban, when many Jews were exiled to Chutz la'Aretz and no longer held the Lulav on Shabbos even on the first day of Yom Tov (because of their doubt about the exact date), the Rabanan <i>combined</i> the concern for 'Lo Tisgodedu' with the Gezeirah (lest one carry the Lulav in Reshus ha'Rabim) and prohibited holding the Lulav on the first day of Yom Tov even in Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
In contrast, there is no rational basis to institute a second day of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael, other than the concern for 'Lo Tisgodedu.' That concern alone is not sufficient to necessitate such an enactment in Eretz Yisrael. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 26
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the Mikdash it was Halachah l'Moshe 
          mi'Sinai whereas outside it was the Yesod 
          Nevi'im.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ARAVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> The Aravah must have a Shiur, must be 
          taken alone and one may not use the Aravah 
          which is bound with his Lulav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If it must be taken alone then 
               it goes without saying that one may not 
               use the Aravah bound with his Lulav!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We might have permitted this 
               Aravah if he picked up his Lulav-set a 
               second time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> One may use the Aravah bound with 
          his Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Shiur of Aravah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Nachman):</font></b> Three branches with moist 
          leaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Sheshes):</font></b> Even one leaf and one 
          branch.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is one leaf or one leafless 
               branch?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, one leaf on one branch.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>INCIDENTS OF R. ELAZAR B'REBBI TZADOK, AS REPORTED BY 'EIVO'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar was brought an Aravah and he was 
          Chovet (waved it-Rashi) and did not recite a 
          Berachah, holding that it is Minhag Nevi'im 
          (the same was done by Rav, for the same 
          reason).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar was very impressed with the wealthy 
          man who asked regarding the manner in which he 
          was paying his workers with Shevi'is produce.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The man returned to ask how to properly 
               pay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar told him to use money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But this labor (Kishkush) is not 
               permitted on Shemitah (as in the 
               Beraisa)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Ukva b. Chama):</font></b> One Kishkush is 
               permitted (covering the roots, for the 
               survival of the tree) and one is not 
               permitted (for the enhancement of the 
               tree).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Eivo cited R. Elazar as teaching that a person 
          must not travel more than three Parsah on Erev 
          Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Kehana):</font></b> This restricts him only when 
               traveling to his home, not to an inn 
               (since he is not relying on the innkeeper 
               to have food for him, he is not likely to 
               be angered by its absence).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Alternate R. Kehana):</font></b> This restricts him 
               <i>even</i> if going to his home (where he may 
               well find at least something to eat).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> (R. Kehana) I once came home too close to 
               Shabbos and there was absolutely nothing 
               for me to eat.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'MITZVAH' OF LULAV IN THE 'MIKDASH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  An Amora recited in our Mishnah that they would 
          place the Lulavim on the <i>Gag</i> of the Itztaba, 
          instead on the <i>Gav</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Nachman):</font></b> Why would they put them 
          out on the roof (to dry)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, remember the Mishnah as Al Gav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rachva citing R. Yehudah):</font></b> Har ha'Bayis was 
          designed with rows of such posts (Itztabaos).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) RECITING A BLESSING FOR A CUSTOM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Aivo who relates that Rebbi Elazar was given an Aravah branch and he waved it ('Chibut') but did not recite a blessing. Rebbi Elazar maintained that the waving of the Aravah branch is 'Minhag Nevi'im,' a custom initiated by the prophets. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who points out that the Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara elsewhere. The Gemara here implies that no blessing is recited upon the performance of a Minhag, and that is why no blessing is recited for the act of Chibut Aravah. However, the Gemara in Ta'anis (28b) implies that a blessing <i>is</i> recited upon the performance of a Minhag.
</p><p>
The Gemara there relates that when Rav visited Bavel, he saw that the community recited Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. He wanted to stop them, until he noticed that they skipped parts of Hallel. He understood from their omissions that their recitation of Hallel was merely a Minhag from their forebears. Rabeinu Tam there points out that if the people in Bavel did not recite a blessing for their Minhag of saying Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, it would have been obvious to Rav that their practice was merely a Minhag and he would not have had any reason to stop them. Rabeinu Tam here adds that the requirement to recite a blessing for a Minhag is also evident from the fact that blessings are recited upon the performance of the Mitzvos (such as Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos, and Matzah on Pesach) on Yom Tov Sheni, the second day of Yom Tov outside of Eretz Yisrael, even though Yom Tov Sheni is only a Minhag, as the Gemara says in Beitzah (4b).
</p><p>
The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Chanukah 3:7, #5) cites further proof that a blessing is recited for a Minhag from Maseches Sofrim, which states that a blessing ('... Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu...') is recited when each of the Megilos is read. The obligation to read the Megilos (Eichah, Koheles, Ruth, Shir ha'Shirim) at certain times of the year is not mentioned anywhere in the Gemara and is only a Minhag, but yet a blessing is still recited.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam answers that the Gemara in Ta'anis does not contradict the Gemara here, because the Minhag to say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is different from the Minhag of Chibut Aravah. What is the difference between the Minhag of Chibut Aravah (for which no blessing is recited) and the other Minhagim (for which a blessing is recited)? Rabeinu Tam says that the Minhag of Chibut Aravah involves nothing more than a simple act of waving the Aravah. The reading of Hallel, however, is a more significant act, 'because it is like reading verses from the Torah.'
</p><p>
What does Rabeinu Tam mean? How can one say a blessing with the words, '... Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu...,' simply because the Minhag is 'like reading verses from the Torah'? Neither the Torah nor the Chachamim command that Hallel be recited on Rosh Chodesh, just as they do not command that the Aravah be waved on Sukos. Moreover, how does Rabeinu Tam's answer explain why blessings are recited for the Mitzvos performed on Yom Tov Sheni?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (end of Chidushim to Maseches Sukah) explains as follows. <b>RASHI</b> here (44a, DH Minhag) writes that the reason why a blessing is not recited for a Minhag is because the requirement to observe a Minhag is not included in the Mitzvah of 'Lo Sasur' -- 'Do not turn away from what they (the Chachamim) instruct you' (Devarim 17:11).
</p><p>
However, according to the <b>RAMBAM</b>, 'Lo Sasur' includes the obligation to obey any Mitzvah d'Rabanan <i>and</i> any <i>Minhag</i> that the Chachamim instructed us to observe (introduction to Mishneh Torah; see Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh Rishon; Lo Sa'aseh #312, Mitzvas Aseh #174). Why, according to the Rambam, is no blessing recited for the Minhag of Chibut Aravah?
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav explains that it must be that the blessing recited upon the performance of the act is <i>not</i> related to whether the act is a Minhag or a Mitzvah. Rather, when the Chachamim instructed that a certain Minhag be observed but did not enact it as a Mitzvah, their intent was to give it a status different from the status of a Mitzvah. They wanted it to have the status of an obligation of a Minhag, and not an obligation of a Mitzvah. This means that they wanted a certain practice to be observed but they did not want to define the practice as a Mitzvah (a 'Shem Mitzvah'). For example, when the Chachamim enacted the Minhag of Chibut Aravah, they did not want the nature of the act to be considered any more than an act of picking up an Aravah and hitting the floor with it ('Einah Ela Tiltul,' in the words of Rabeinu Tam here). It is not a new category of Mitzvah called 'Chibut Aravah' which one can 'fulfill' or 'not fulfill.'
</p><p>
For such a Minhag, no blessing is recited. Other Minhagim are different and require that a blessing be recited before they are performed. The Mitzvos performed on Yom Tov Sheni (Lulav, Sukah, Matzah) are defined as acts of Mitzvah, since the Torah commands them as Mitzvos for the first day of Yom Tov. The act of holding a Lulav on Yom Tov Sheni is defined as an act of Mitzvah of 'Netilas Lulav' and not merely a motion of bending down and picking up a palm branch. The same applies to reading the Megilos and reciting Hallel. When Rabeinu Tam says that the recitation of Hallel is no different from the reading of the Torah, he means that the act of reading the Torah is a Mitzvah for which the Chachamim instituted a blessing, and thus any act of reading a portion of the Torah is included in the definition of the 'Shem Mitzvah' of 'Keri'as ha'Torah.'
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Chanukah 3:7), however, rules that a blessing is not recited for Hallel on Rosh Chodesh 'because it is a Minhag, and we do not recite a blessing for a Minhag.' However, he seems to contradict this ruling when he writes (in Hilchos Yom Tov 6:14) that Yom Tov Sheni is also a Minhag, and yet he agrees that the Mitzvos of Yom Tov Sheni <i>do</i> require blessings. Why is Hallel different from the Mitzvos of Yom Tov Sheni, according to the Rambam? Both should require a blessing.
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav explains that the Rambam agrees that there is a difference between a Minhag which the Chachamim defined as an act of 'Mitzvah' and a Minhag which they did not designate as a Mitzvah, but for which they merely prescribed the motions of a certain act. Accordingly, the Rambam agrees that blessings are recited for the Mitzvos of the Minhag of Yom Tov Sheni. The reading of Hallel, though, is different.
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav quotes his father, Rabeinu Chaim ha'Levi, who explains that the blessing recited for reading the Torah is not clearly a Birkas ha'Mitzvos, a blessing recited upon the performance of a Mitzvah. There is reason to say that the blessing recited upon reading the Torah is not recited for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah, but rather it is recited as an expression of reverence for the Torah. (Indeed, the Gemara in Berachos (21a) derives this blessing from the verse (Devarim 32:3), 'Ki Shem Hash-m Ekra Havu Godel l'Elokeinu.') Accordingly, it is possible that the Chachamim did not define the reading of the Torah as an act of Mitzvah for which a blessing <i>of a Mitzvah</i> must be recited (perhaps they established that a blessing is not recited on this type of Mitzvah). Therefore, the recitation of half-Hallel does not warrant a Birkas ha'Mitzvah ('li'Kro Es ha'Hallel') because it is compared to the Mitzvah of reading from the Torah, which does not have a Birkas ha'Mitzvah. (See also Insights to Ta'anis 28:1.)
</p><p>


