Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 

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

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

 Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos. 

 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

 Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

 And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 

 Summary 

 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth, or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

 There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)” 

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.

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

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

 Summary 

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: The flute overrides Shabbos. Chachomim: It does not override even a yom tov. 

 Rav Yosef: The dispute is with regard to the shir that accompanied the daily korban [at the time that they would pour wine all year and water on Sukkos].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, and so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.

 The Chachomim hold that the primary component of Shira is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are mere accessories which do not override Shabbos.

With regard to the flute of Beis Hashoeiva, everyone agrees that it is not an avodah and does not override Shabbos. [Later the gemara refutes this, but this is the shittah of Rav Yosef]. 

 Rav Yosef: I have proof to this from the following beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit.

It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute [they had an ancient relic in the Beis Hamikdash, a flute used by Moshe which was made of wood]. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. It was ‘impossible’ to make this flute of other materials [once a king coated this flute with gold and it no longer had the same sound, so they were forced to remove the coating].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda says that the same law applies where it is ‘possible’ to use different materials, wood is still fit for the Mikdash vessels. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi holds that what was done in a case where it is ‘impossible’ is not a proof for and in other situations wooden vessels are unfit.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

The Chalil [a fife; a musical instrument] is played for five or six days of Yom Tov (up til here is the original mishna which was very brief. Here the mishna adds an explanation). This is the Chalil of Beis Hashoeiva, which overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom Tov*.

 Gemara: 

 We Learned: Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Shoeiva [Drawing]** and one of them teaches that it was called the Chashuva [Significant] Celebration [since it was taught orally, this difference came up]. 

 Mar Zutra: The one who taught Shoeiva is not in error, and the one who taught Chashuva is not in error (although only one is correct, there is justification for each version). 

Justification for Shoeiva: The possuk “[Ush’avtem] And you shall draw water with joy from the wells of salvation”.

Justification for Chashuva: As Rav Nachman said: It is a significant mitzvah [chashuva] which originates from the six days of Creation (39.3).

__________

* Tosfos: Playing an instrument is only D’rabbanan which is generally overridden in the Mikdash. But here it is not a necessary part of the Avodah, only a display of excessive simcha. 

* *Tosfos: The Yerushalmi adds that they also drew Ruach Hakodesh from the simcha there.

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 

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

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

Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.

 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira.

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah.

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 

 Summary 

 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth , or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)”

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.

 In honor of Ami and Suri Morgenstern 

 MAZEL TOV!! 

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

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

 According to Chachomim, the holes in the mizbeach were hewed out from the time of Creation. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok they just led to beneath the mizbeach and were taken out to be burned every seventy years. 

 Summary 

 Question: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna ?

There is me’ilah for the wine before it is poured. However, once they went down into the shittin, there is no me’ilah. 

It seems to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, that the wine did not descend to the depths. According to the Chachomim the wine already descended to the depths? [So it seems that we have a mishna in accordance with a minority opinion]. 

 Response: It can be according to the opinion of the Chachomim as well. It could be referring to a case where some of the wine was caught by someone before it fell to the depths.

 Ikka D’omri [a different version]:

 Question: Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Chachomim and not Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok.

According to Rabbi Elazar, there should still be me’ilah until the wine is burned at the end of seventy years.

 Response: It can be according to the opinion of the Rabbi Elazar as well, however the main mitzvah is Nisuch Hayayin, since the mitzvah was accomplished, there is no more me’ilah. 

 Reish Lakish: When the wine was poured, they plugged up the shittin so that the basins looked full of wine were visible, as the possuk states: “Pour a wine offering of good drink [ sheichar ] for Hashem”.

 Question: From where do we see that the good drink must accumulate? 

 Rav Papa: Sheichar is an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. In order to underscore all three aspects, we must be able to see the wine. 

 Rav Papa: We hear from this that when a person is satiated from drinking wine, it is from his throat that he is satiated. The sensation of having a lot of wine in his throat is what satisfies him.

 Rava: Therefore, a young Torah scholar, who does not have much wine, should swallow his wine in a big gulp. 

 Rava himself, when drinking a kos shel bracha, would swallow a large gulp in honor of the mitzvah. 

 A Derasha by Rava: The possuk states: “How beautiful are your feet in shoes, you daughter of that princely man” [Nadiv means a princely man of generous spirit; who volunteers]. It means: How beautiful are the feet of Yisroel at the time when they go up to Yerushalayim for Yom Tov. [They achieved their noble spirit of forsaking their homesteads three times a year, because they are descended from that generous man]. 

“That princely man” refers to Avraham, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The generous ones of the nations [the twelve tribes] are gathered together, they’re the people of Elokei Avraham”. Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Avraham, and not Yitzchok and Yaakov? Because he was first of the geirim [he left his father’s house to wander after Hashem and that spirit is still in his children].

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

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

 Summary 

We learned in the mishna (38.5): The basins were perforated like two thin nostrils. One hole was thicker, and one was thinner, so that the wine and water would drain at the same time.

 Question: It seems that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not the Chachomim, as we learned in the mishna, “Rabbi Yehuda: All eight days 1 lug of water is poured”. But according to the Chachomim both the wine and the water were 3 lug? 

 Response: Even according to the Chachomim, wine is thick and water is thin, and therefore wine flows more slowly than water and requires a wider opening.

This is indeed logical because in a beraisa, Rabbi Yehuda uses different wording to describe the difference between the apertures (and a Tanna’s wording was always preserved as he said it). 

 This is indeed a proof.

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): The western bowl was for the water, and the eastern bowl was for the wine. 

 Beraisa: It once happened that a Tzeduki (they were a sect who sought to seize power. In those days you couldn’t disdain the Torah but they sought to discredit the sages. This Tzeduki refers to Yannai Hamelech - the Hasmonean kings would take the kehunah gedolah. The gemara is very considerate of the honor of Jews and doesn’t speak ill even of the disloyal) poured the water over his feet and the multitude pelted him with their esrogim (the rest of the story is that Yannai had gentile mercenaries waiting outside and he sent them in to massacre the crowd and the sages. Later he ended up giving the power to the Chachomim who led the nation through his wife’s reign. Those were the best 9 years in the second temple period).

On that day, the corner of the mizbeach was broken off. They brought a big chunk of salt (which looks like the material the mizbeach is made from) and repaired that place where it was broken off, the mizbeach remained possul, but they did it for appearances sake - to honor the mizbeach. 

A mizbeach which is missing its kevesh or its karnos (a block that was mounted on the four corners) or its yesod (a step on the bottom of the mizbeach) or is lacking in squareness (that what happened here), it is possul (this is because there is repetition in the possuk regarding these things).

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: Also the soveiv renders the mizbeach possul if it is missing.

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

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

 Summary 

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): The kohen would ascend the kevesh and turn to his left. 

 Beraisa: The procedure was always to come up on the right side and continually turn to the right before finally coming down on the left side with three exceptions: Nisuch Hamayim, Nisuch Hayayin and Olas Ha’of when there were too many on the eastern side of the mizbeach. [An exception was made for Nisuch so that the wine wasn’t ruined by the smoke on the mizbeach. And for the Olas Ha’of for fear it wouldn’t survive the trip around the perimeter of the mizbeach]. 

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): Rabbi Yehuda: The basins were made of lime but blackened by the wine. 

 Question: Why was the water basin blackened by wine?

 Response: Since we learned in the mishna that the wine may occasionally be poured into the water basin.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna Continued: 

The same procedure was followed on Shabbos, only, they would fill a golden keg that was not consecrated, and place it in the Lishka. They would draw water from there on Shabbos.

If the water spilled, or if it was exposed overnight, (In Ereyz Yisroel and Bavel there was a concern that a reptile may have deposited venom in the water and it wasn’t used if it had been left out overnight), they would use water from the Kiyor, since exposed wine or water is unfit for the mizbeach. 

 Gemara: 

 Question: What is the source for these matters?

 Rav Eina: As the verse states “With joy [Sasson] you shall draw water”.

There were two minim [this generally means Christians], one named Sasson and one named Simcha. Sasson said to Simcha: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain Sasson and Simcha”. Sasson is mentioned first. [The ridiculous logic here is paralleled whenever the New Testament writers seek to bring proofs from the Scripture]. Simcha said to Sasson, On the contrary, I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was Simcha and Sasson for the Jews”. Sasson said to Simcha: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger boy, as it is written: “For you shall go out with Simcha”. Simcha said to Sasson: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With Sasson you shall draw water.”

 Sasson to Rabbi Abahu: You are all destined to draw water for me in the World to Come, as it is written: “With Sasson you shall draw water.”

 Rabbi Abahu: If it had been written: “For Sasson”, it would have been as you say [Rabbi Abahu here is following the principle of ‘answer a fool with his foolishness’]; now that it is written: “With Sasson”, it means that we will make a leather flask from your skin, and we will draw water with it.

 In Memory of Reb Yekusiel Yehuda ben Tzvi A”H

Whose short life influenced thousands 

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

The mitzvah of Nisuch Hamayim was as follows: They would fill a gold pitcher with 3 lug of water from the Shiloach.

When they arrived at Shaar Hamayim they would blast tekiah, teruah, tekiah (a sign of simcha). 

The kohen would ascend the kevesh and turn to his left (usually they would only turn right) where there were two silver basins set into the top of the mizbeach. 

Rabbi Yehuda: Actually they were made of lime but blackened by the wine.

The basins were perforated like two thin nostrils (According to Rashi they flowed from the basins onto the mizbeach where the “nostrils” were. According to Tosfos the “nostrils” were inside the basins). One hole was thicker, and one was thinner, so that the wine [of Nisuch Hayayin] and water would drain at the same time. 

The western bowl was for the water, and the eastern bowl was for the wine.

If the water was poured into the wine basin, or vice versa, it is okay.

 Rabbi Yehuda: All eight days (the Tanna Kamma only discusses the seven days of sukkos) 1 lug is poured.

They would tell the kohen who was pouring “pick up your hand” so that they can see him pouring. [This is because some kohanim would show disdain to the mitzvah by pouring the water over their feet]. It once happened that someone [this refers to Yannai, the Hasmonean/Saducee king who instigated a massacre at that time] poured the water over his feet and the multitude pelted him with their esrogim.

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In Memory of Reb Yitzchok Shalom ben Reb Shaul Rosenblum A”H 

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

 When one is done eating in the sukkah on the seventh day, he shouldn’t dismantle his sukkah. From mincha time on, he should bring his things down (the sukkah was always on the roof) in honor of the Yom Tov of Shemini Atzeres. 

 Gemara: 

 Question: What if he doesn’t have anything to bring down?

 Challenge: How did he eat there for seven days if he doesn’t have anything there?

 Resolution: The question was: What if he doesn’t have a home to bring things into [and staying in the sukkah in Eretz Yisroel may be a problem of Bal Tosif]? 

 Rabbi Chiya bar Ashi: He can break open 4x4 tefachim of schach*.

 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: He can light a lamp there.

 These two opinions are in agreement with each other, only that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is in Eretz Yisroel where the sukkah is no longer needed and Rabbi Chiya bar Ashi is in Bavel.

 Challenge: A lamp in the sukkah signifies that one no longer cares for the sukkah in a small sukkah, but in a large sukkah where one is not afraid that it will burn down, one can bring in a lamp even on Yom Tov?

 Resolution: In a large sukkah he can bring the pots and pans into the sukkah as taught by Rava (24.1): Drinking vessels may remain in the sukkah but eating vessels should remain outside of the sukkah. 

_________

* Rashash: Although airspace of 3 tefachim invalidates the sukkah, here this person might cover the hole with something, thus the hole must be 4 tefachim.

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

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

 Summary 

 Question: What is the bottom line in the discussion of shehechyanu on Shemini Atzeres. Is it recited or not?

 Rav Nachman: It is recited.

 Rav Sheshes: It is not recited.

 The Halacha: It is recited. 

A beraisa supporting Rav Nachman: 

 Shemini Atzeres is its own Yom Tov with regard to the halachos alluded to by the acronym Pazer Keshev: It has its own Payes (Sukkos has many korbanos and it follows a certain order, but Shemini Atzeres only has one Korban), Zman (The bracha of shehechyanu), it is its own Regel (With regard to: either the mitzvah of Sukkah, which is no longer practiced. Or, mentioning it by name in Tefillah and Brachos), it is unique in Korban, it is unique in Shirah (37.6) and it is unique in Bracha (With regard to: mentioning it by name in Tefillah and Brachos. Or, the bracha upon the Melech). 

 Mishna: 

 All eight days of Sukkos are equally obligated in Hallel (Hallel in the gemara never refers to half hallel, which is only a minhag discovered by Rav in part of Bavel) and Simcha (to partake in meat of the Shlamim). One is obligated in Hallel, Simcha and Kavod of the last day, just like all the previous days.

 Gemara: 

 Question: What is the source for the law of Simcha on Shemini Atzeres?

 Beraisa: “[You shall rejoice for seven days] and you shall only be joyful” - This [repetition] teaches that the night of Shemini Atzeres (which follows Yom Tov immediately, it surely includes the day of Shemini Atzeres as well) is included in the obligation of Simcha.

Perhaps it comes to include the first night of Yom Tov (that one must bring a shlamim on erev Yom Tov so as to have meat on the first night of Yom Tov)? 

But the possuk precludes that by the word “only”.

Why should we omit the first night but include the last night?

We omit the first night because it would mean bringing a korban before Yom Tov but we include the last night because it is preceded by Yom Tov.

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

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

Rabbi Yochanan: The shehechyanu blessing is recited on Shemini Atzeres.

A proof was attempted from the beraisa “Rabbi Yehuda: Shemini Atzeres requires Korban, Shir, Bracha and Linah”. It would seem that “Bracha” means Shehechyanu.

The gemara rejects this and says instead that it is referring to Birkas Hamazon and Tefillah.

 Summary 

 It would seem so: Because if it means shehechyanu, how do you explain the beginning of the beraisa “All seven days of Sukkos require Bracha”, only the first day requires a shehechyanu? 

 Response: It could mean that if someone missed the shehechyanu, he can make up for it all week.

 Challenge: But the shehechyanu has to be made as part of kiddush, which is only possible on the first night?

 Suggestion: Perhaps this is a proof to Rabbi Nachman.

 Rabbi Nachman: The shehechyanu blessing can be recited even on the street [without wine].

 Response: It is not necessarily a proof, perhaps the Chachomim of the beraisa are discussing a case where he has wine.

 Challenge: Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that Shemini requires Linah?

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Pesach Sheini does not require Linah because it states “In the morning [after Linah] you shall return to your homes, for six days you shall eat Matzoh” so we see that only what requires six days requires Linah.

So it seems that in addition to excluding Pesach Sheini, he excludes Shemini Atzeres as well (it would seem to exclude Shavuos as well). 

 Resolution: It excludes only Pesach Sheini.

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

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

 Rabbi Yochanan: The shehechyanu blessing is recited on Shemini Atzeres. 

 Summary 

 A Proof: “The Parim Eilim and Kvasim all constitute sets, if one of them is missing the entire category of Korban cannot be brought.

 Rabbi Yehuda: The Parim do not constitute a set since their number is not constant and diminishes each day.

 They said to him: The Eilim and Kvasim also diminish on Shemini Atzeres!

 Rabbi Yehuda: Shemini is a separate Yom Tov. Just as the seven days of Sukkos require Korban [according to a certain order], Shir [the shir on sukkos discussed helping the poor], Bracha [it seems it requires a shehechyanu], and Linah [anyone who brings a korban must sleep over in Yerushalayim that night], so too, Shemini Atzeres requires Korban, Shir, Bracha and Linah”

So it seems that Shemini Atzeres requires a Shehechyanu. 

 Response: No, it is referring to Birkas Hamazon and Tefillah.

 In Memory of Reb Yekusiel Yehuda ben Tzvi A”H

Whose short life influenced thousands 

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

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

 Summary 

 Rabbi Yochanan: The shehechyanu blessing is recited on the last day of Sukkos [Shemini Atzeres, because it’s considered a new Yom Tov] but not on the last day of Pesach.

 Rabbi Levi bar Chama some say Rabbi Chama bar Chanina: You can know that this is so because Shemini Atzeres is different from the rest of Sukkos in three ways: Sukkah, Lulav and Nisuch Hamayim. These mitzvos are not done on Shemini Atzeres.

And according to Rabbi Yehuda that a lug was poured on all days (according to the Tanna Kamma 3 lug were poured on the first seven days only) including Shemini Atzeres, it is different in two ways. 

 Challenge: If so, a shehechyanu should be recited on Shvi’i Shel Pesach too, since it is different in the matter of Matzah, as we learned “On the first night there is an obligation to eat matzah even if one is not hungry, for the rest of Yom Tov there’s no obligation”.

 Resolution: What’s the comparison? Shvi’i Shel Pesach is only different from the beginning of Yom Tov at night but its day is not different from the preceding days. Shemini Atzeres is different from all days of Sukkos. (The following Amoraim are not arguing, they’re all adding). 

 Ravina: Shemini Atzeres is different from the day before, Shvi’i Shel Pesach is only different from the beginning of Yom Tov.

 Rav Papa: On Shemini Atzeres only a single Par is brought as opposed to the prior days where multiple Parim are brought.

 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: With regard to Shemini Atzeres the possuk begins “On the eighth day”, but with regard to all other days the possuk begins “ And on the ___ day”

 Rav Ashi: With regard to Shemini Atzeres the possuk says “According to its procedure”, but with regard to the seventh day the possuk says “According to their procedure”, to sum up all the prior days.

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

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

 Rabbi Yochanan: An esrog is muktzeh all day on Hoshana Rabbah, but may be handled on Shemini Atzeres. The sukkah is forbidden even on Shemini Atzeres.

 Reish Lakish: The esrog is permissible even on Hoshana Rabbah. 

Reish Lakish holds the esrog is only set aside for the duration of the mitzvah, afterwards it is permissible. Rabbi Yochanan holds that muktzeh cannot apply to part of a day, and it is muktzeh all day. 

 Summary 

 Rabbi Zeira: One shouldn’t give his arba minim to a child on the first day of Yom Tov [before the father was yotzei]. The reason for this is since a child can acquire but cannot give away, the father will thus be taking arba minim that belong to the child.

 Rabbi Zeira: One should never tell a child that he will give him something and then fail to follow through because he is training him that it’s okay to lie, as the possuk states “They trained themselves to lie”.

 We Learned: If one set aside seven esrogim , one for each day of Yom Tov.

 Rav Asi [following the girsa of the Bach]: He can eat it immediately after doing the mitzvah each day (following the opinion of Reish Lakish). 

 Rav: Each esrog can be eaten on the day after it was used for the mitzvah (following the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan). 

 Rav Asi holds the esrog is only set aside for the duration of the mitzvah, afterwards it is permissible. Rav holds that muktzeh cannot apply to part of a day, and it is muktzeh all day. 

 In Chutz La’aretz: 

 Abayye: It is forbidden on Shemini Atzeres as well because it is a safek shevi’i. 

 Mereimar: It is permissible on Shemini Atzeres even for us in Chutz La’aretz.

In Sura they followed Mereimar. Rav Shisha brei d’Rav Idi followed Abayye. The halacha follows Abayye.

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

Large stems of Aravah were brought from a place called Motza, in the valley below Yerushalayim.

Summary

We begin now the sugya of muktzah machmas mitzvah: If something is set aside for a mitzvah, it may not be handled for any other purpose.

Rabbi Yochanan: An esrog is muktzeh all day on Hoshana Rabbah (although it’s technically a weekday, there is still a “muktzeh”), but may be handled on Shemini Atzeres. The sukkah is forbidden even on Shemni Atzeres (this is because the sukkah is used all day, including the time of bein hashmashos which may already be the beginning of Shemini Atzeres).

 Reish Lakish: The esrog is permissible even on Hoshana Rabbah. 

Their argument is as follows: Reish Lakish holds the esrog is only set aside for the duration of the mitzvah, afterwards it is permissible. Rabbi Yochanan holds that muktzeh cannot apply to part of a day, and it is muktzeh all day. 

 Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yochanan from the mishna (35.6): “They would snatch the lulavim from the hands of the children and eat their esrogim”. So it seems that anyone can eat esrogim on Hoshana Rabbah because they are no longer muktzeh? 

 Response: The mishna is discussing children specifically (either that their esrogim can be eaten since their mitzvah is not really a mitzvah, or that they can eat the esrogim).

 Some say: Rabbi Yochanan challenged Reish Lakish from the mishna (35.6): “They would snatch the lulavim from the hands of the children and eat their esrogim”. So it seems that only children can eat esrogim on Hoshana Rabbah but for adults, they’re muktzeh? 

 Response: The mishna does not intend to specify children, it is merely recording the custom of the children.

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

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

 Summary 

 Beraisa: One who builds a sukkah for his use recites a shehechyanu [this bracha is actually for the whole Yom Tov. It may be made already at the time of building the sukkah]. When he enters it on Yom Tov, he recites leisheiv basukkah. 

If the sukkah is already built, he may recite the bracha if he renews something in its construction, otherwise he can recite it when he enters it on Yom Tov.

 Rav Ashi: I saw Rav Kahana make all the blessings on the kos of kiddush [this is our minhag as well, so as not to confuse some people who have a built sukkah all year round].

 Beraisa: If one has several mitzvos before him, he can lump them together in one bracha “Asher kidshanu b’mitzvosav v’tzivanu al hamitzvos”. 

 Rabbi Yehuda: Each mitzvah should get its own bracha [for more on this, see the lashon kodesh maamar here]. https://groups.google.com/a/torasavigdor.org/g/toras-avigdor-ey/c/GSRU628fWrQ/m/oFPXQB4UAQAJ 

 Rabbi Zeira and some say Rabbi Chanina bar Papa: We follow Rabbi Yehuda. 

 Rabbi Zeira and some say Rabbi Chanina bar Papa: The reason for this is because the possuk says “Blessed is Hashem every day”. Is Hashem not blessed at night? It means every day should get the blessing appropriate for that day (every season deserves its own thanks. In the summer we’re grateful that we save on heating costs). Similarly, each mitzvah should get its own blessing.

 Rabbi Zeira and some say Rabbi Chanina bar Papa: The way of Hakodosh Boruch Hu is not the way of human beings. The way of human beings is that if something is empty it can be filled but if it’s full it can no longer be filled. But the way of Hakodosh Boruch Hu is that someone full can be filled with even more (if his mind is filled with Hashem, then there’s room for more), but if he’s an empty man he cannot accept anything.

This is based on the possuk “If you listened, you will listen”.

 Another pshat: “If you listen to the old, you’ll hear new” (one explanation is that if you’ll review the old things, you’ll gain new understanding of the old things. Another explanation is that if you listen to old things, Hashem will give you more opportunity to hear new things). But if you don’t listen to the old, you won’t hear.

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

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

 Rebbi: A bracha is recited each time one dons tefillin. 

 Chachomim: One only recites the bracha in the morning. 

 Summary 

 Abayye: The halacha follows Rebbi.

 Rava: The halacha follows the Chachomim.

 Rav Mari brei d’bas Shmuel: I saw that Rava didn’t follow the Chachomim in practice; when he left the bathroom he made a new bracha on his tefillin. 

We also follow Rebbi and recite the bracha all seven days.

 Mar Zutra: Whenever Rav Papi would put on tefillin, he would make a bracha. The Rabbanan d’bei Rav Ashi would make a new bracha every time they would touch their tefillin*.

 Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The mitzvah of lulav [d’orayso] is all seven days.

 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The mitzvah of lulav [d’orayso] is only the first day, all other days is a d’rabbanan.

 Rabbi Yitzchok: Every day is a d’rabbanan. 

 Challenge: But we know that the first day is a d’orayso? 

 Resolution: It means “all days except for the first.”

 Challenge: But then Rabbi Yitzchok would be repeating the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

 Resolution: It should read “And thus said Rabbi Yitzchok as well”.

According to Rav too, the mitzvah is all seven days and one makes a bracha [as we see with regard to Chanuka which is certainly d’rabbanan and a bracha is recited].

 Rabbi bar Ashi quoting Rav: One who lights candles on Chanuka recites a bracha. 

 Rabbi Yirmiyah: One who sees** candles on Chanuka recites a bracha. 

 Rav Yehuda: On the first day, one who lights recites three brachos and one who sees recites two. On subsequent days, one who lights recites two brachos and one who sees recites only one.

The bracha is “Who has sanctified us with his mitzvos and has commanded us to light the Chanuka candles”.

 Challenge: Where has He commanded us? It’s a d’rabbanan! 

 Resolution: “Do not turn aside from all that they command you”.

 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: “Your zekeinim will tell you”.

 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok taught this explicitly [that Rav’s opinion was not inferred from Chanuka but that he taught it with regard to Sukkos]: Rav: The mitzvah of lulav is all seven days.

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mxZfVnfxjPjcnuV9KO260gRX-Zk0YkIn/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: The bracha was probably lishmor chukov (we have a zecher to this bracha nowadays at the end of Uva letzion). 

* *Tosfos: A bracha is not recited for seeing other mitzvos because of how beloved the mitzvah is. Others say that this bracha is because not everyone has a house, but this is difficult because there is no bracha on seeing the mezuzah.

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

Ayvo [the father of Rav]: I was standing in front of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok and someone brought him an aravah, he shook it but didn’t make a bracha.

 Summary 

 Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: A bracha is recited on the mitzvah of lulav all seven days. On the mitzvah of sukkah, only one day.

Since the mitzvah of lulav is renewed each morning, every day is a new bracha. But since the mitzvah of sukkah applies at night as well, all seven days are like one long day.

 Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: A bracha is recited on the mitzvah of sukkah all seven days. On the mitzvah of lulav, only one day.

This is because sukkah is a d’oraysa all seven days while lulav is d’rabbanan. 

When Ravin came, he quoted Rabbi Yochanan: A bracha is recited on both mitzvos all seven days*.

 Rav Yosef: Take the opinion of Rabbah bar bar Chana, because all amoraim [including Ravin. Also Rav Dimi. Rabeinu Chananel] agree with his opinion with regard to sukkah. [What Rav Yosef is saying exactly is not clear, but in practice we follow Ravin]. 

 Challenge: Beraisa: One who makes a lulav for his use recites a shehechyanu (we don’t do this because we rely on the blessing during kiddush). When he takes it on Yom Tov, he recites al netilas lulav. He recites this bracha every day.

One who builds a sukkah for his use recites a shehechyanu. When he enters it on Yom Tov, he recites leisheiv basukkah. This bracha is only said on the first day.

This contradicts the opinion of Rabbah bar bar Chana both in regard to lulav and sukkah. 

 Lulav can be explained because it was d’orayso in the times of the Beis Hamikdash. But the difficulty with regard to sukkah remains.

 Resolution: This is a matter that is disputed by tannaim, as we see in the beraisa: 

 Rebbi: A bracha is recited each time one dons tefillin. 

 Chachomim: One only recites the bracha in the morning.

[According to Rebbi the “doing” of the mitzvah is important. According to the Chachomim the “availability” of the mitzvah is what matters. These svaros can be applied to the machlokes regarding sukkah and lulav].

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/193rJ2vebIwOvYKERoUNqwJki2iHbOCXE/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: But on sukkah it may be recited multiple times per day, this is because it is impossible to eat without entering a sukkah so each time one desires to eat, one makes a new bracha.

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

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

Rabbi Ami: The Aravah used on Hoshana Rabbah [or every day in the Beis Hamikdash] requires a certain measure. It must be taken on its own, not with the lulav. One cannot fulfill his obligation with the Aravah that’s bound in the lulav.

 Summary 

 Chizkiyah quoting Rabbi Yirmiyah from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: I have seen the Bnei Aliyah and they’re few. If they number a thousand, my son and I are among them. If they number a hundred, my son and I are among them. If there are only two, it’s my son and me. 

 Challenge: Are the tzaddikim so few? 

 Rava: There are 18,000 generations [or rows] of tzaddikim before Hakadosh Baruch Hu, as it states “Eighteen thousand surround him”

 Resolution: There are many tzaddikim who can see Hashem with a lamp but there are few who can see Him with an illuminated lamp. 

 Challenge: Are the tzaddikim who see Hashem with an illuminated lamp so few? 

 Abayye: The world will always have at least 36 tzaddikim [who pray properly and] greet the shechina each day as it states “Praiseworthy is he who hopes to Him” ‘Him’ is gematriya 36.

 Resolution: There are many who enter with permission but there are few who can enter without permission. 

We learned in the mishna (35.6): When they finished the mitzvah they would say “Beauty belongs to you, mizbeach”

Rabbi Eliezer: “Beauty belongs to Kah, and to you, mizbeach”.

 Challenge: How can Rabbi Eliezer put something else on the same level as Hashem? 

 Beraisa: Anyone who combines Hashem and something else is uprooted from the world, as it states: “Only for Hashem alone”.

 Resolution: It means: “We thank You Kah, and we praise you, mizbeach”. 

We learned in the mishna (35.6): Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah: They would bring branches of a palm tree, lulavim, and strike it on the ground beside the mizbeach. That day was called “Chibut Chariyos” [striking of the palm branches].

 Rav Huna: This is because Kapos is plural (26.2), one for the lulav and one for the mizbeach.* The Chachomim maintain that it is written in the singular form, Kapas.

 Rabbi Levi: The lulav is taken because it represents the praise of the Am Yisroel: Just as a palm tree has only one “heart” in the center of its trunk and not in all its branches, so too the Am Yisroel only have one interest; their father in Heaven. We do not seek entertainment, arts and war, our sole interest is Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g8QZ69f8xSKe8ZbUxda-K7aFoX1Mau9y/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: We see from here that according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Brokah there was no Aravah taken in the Beis Hamikdash at all. He learns from “Kapos - Plural” just as we learned (27.4) that “Arvei - Plural” teaches the two mitzvos of Aravah. Tosfos does not remain with this pshat.

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

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

 Summary 

 Rabbi Yirmiyah from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and the same was said by Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Shimon Hamechuzi from Rabbi Yochanan Hamachusi: Whoever makes an addition to Yom Tov (Isru Chag - based on the verse in 36.1) with food and drink [to show that he regrets the departure of Yom Tov] it is considered by the verse (36.1) as if he built a mizbeach and brought a korban on it (the lesson is that one should always show regret when leaving a mitzvah, such as when you leave the Beis Haknesses or the Shabbos, or when you take steps back after Shmoneh Esrei, you wait a moment before returning).

 Chizkiyah quoting Rabbi Yirmiyah from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: Mitzvos must be taken standing upright, the way they grow. This is based on the possuk “[The krashim of the mishkan are] upright Shittim wood” (they were marked so as not to turn them upside down). 

We learned in a beraisa also thus: “Upright Shittim wood” - They stood the way they grew. 

Another pshat: They held up their [golden] coating.

 Another pshat: They stand forever. You might think that their hope is gone and they have no outlook for the future, so the possuk tells us that they stand forever (although they were secreted someplace under the Har Habayis by Shlomo, they stand forever. It’s lucky that the Mohammedans do not allow the Israeli archaeologists to dig there and in Me’aras Hamachpelah).

 Chizkiyah quoting Rabbi Yirmiyah from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: I am capable of absolving the world of judgment (the merit of the tzadik protects the generation, Rabbi Shimon had especial merit because of his great suffering over 13 years in the cave) from the time I was born until now. And with the merit of my son Elazar, from the time of creation until now (the combined merit of tzadikim does not add, it multiplies). If we can add the merit of Yosam ben Uziyahu (his father, sometimes called Azaryah, was stricken with leprosy and could not remain in Yerushalayim, he took over all the functions of government but did not consider himself a king, merely an agent of his father. This humility and Kibud Av helped him reach great heights of perfection), our combined merit would absolve the entire world, from creation until the end of time! (Why he chose Yosam is a puzzle, why not Moshe Rabeinu, why not Rabbi Akiva?) (We see that Avraham expended considerable effort to try and save Sedom. It means that Rabbi Shimon, and perhaps other tzadikim too, could expend considerable effort and save the world. But they do not wish to interfere with the plan of Hakadosh Baruch Hu).

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

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

 Large stems of Aravah were brought from a place called Motza, in the valley below Yerushalayim. 

 Summary 

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: That place was a colony of Rome.

The reason our mishna calls it Motza is because it was exempt from head-tax.

 We learned in the mishna (35.6): The aravos were set up erect around the mizbeach and their tips bent over on the mizbeach. 

 Beraisa: They were fresh and long and 11 amos high (a man is 4 amos high) so that they can lean over the mizbeach an amah. 

 Mereimar from Mar Zutra: It must have been placed on the Yesod. 

How could it have been on the ground? [The mizbeach was not a shear wall 10 amos high] “The first amah was the yesod, it indented an amah, and then there was a 5 amah wall, it indented another amah for the soveiv, and then there was a three amah wall which was topped by the kranos.”* So how could an 11 amah aravah standing on the ground be bent one amah over the mizbeach? 

So we learn from here that it was placed on the Yesod.

 Rabbi Avahu: What is the scriptural source for surrounding the mizbeach with aravos? The possuk “Isru chag ba’avosim ad karnos hamizbeach - Bind the korban with ropes [slaughter it], and bring it near the corners of the mizbeach”. 

The word avosim can be understood to mean thickly foliaged branches, this possuk is telling us to bring these above the corners of the mizbeach. 

 Rabbi Avahu quoting Rabbi Elazar: Anyone who takes the lulav bound, and the hadas when it is plaited, is considered as if he built a mizbeach and brought a korban on it, based on the abovementioned possuk.

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

 The mitzvah of aravah was performed in the Beis Hamikdash as follows:

Large stems of Aravah were brought from a place called Motza, in the valley below Yerushalayim. These were set up erect around the mizbeach and their tips bent over on the mizbeach. They would blow Tekiah Teruah and Tekiah blasts.

Every day they would surround the mizbeach reciting “Ana Hashem hoshiah na, Ana Hashem hatzlicha na”.

 Rabbi Yehuda: They would say “Ani Veho hoshia na” [ Rashi: These are mystical names of Hashem derived from permutations of the verses ‘vayisa, vayavo, vayet’ in Parshas Beshalach. Tosfos: A simple meaning is that when we are in trouble, Hashem is with us, Ani V’Hu].

On Hoshana Rabbah the mizbeach would be circled 7 times. 

 When they finished the mitzvah they would say “Beauty belongs to you, mizbeach” [beauty belongs to the place of service of Hashem. That is why Yerushalayim is praised for its beauty as well].

 Rabbi Eliezer: “Beauty belongs to Kah, and to you, mizbeach”. 

This mitzvah was fulfilled on Shabbos just as during the week, only that the aravos were picked on Friday and kept in gold basins so that they wouldn’t wilt.

 Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah: They would bring branches of a palm tree, lulavim, and strike it on the ground beside the mizbeach [Tiferes Yisroel: This was done on Shabbos because palm branches keep fresh longer than aravos]. That day was called “Chibut Chariyos” [striking of the palm branches].

They would snatch the lulavim from the hands of the children and eat their esrogim. [One pshat is that this was done out of simcha, like Tosfos brings that the young men used to dress like cavalry and feign battle maneuvers at a simchas chasuna. The esrogim are not considered muktzah because since they belong to children, it’s not a real mitzvah. Another pshat is that the children would pull the lulavim out of its bundle, and they would eat their own esrogim].

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

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

 Summary 

 Ayvo from Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: One shouldn’t travel more than 3 parsa’os on an erev Shabbos [a man can travel 10 parsa’os in a day, so he’s saying that one should arrive at his destination while there is still two thirds of the day ahead. Otherwise there wouldn’t be time to prepare food for him and it may lead to desecrating the Shabbos, or there won’t be enough food to go around and it will lead to fighting].

 Rav Kahana: This is only true when he is travelling to his home [where he expects to be served meals], but if he’s going to stay at a hostel, he is relying on the provisions he brings along himself.

 Ikka D’omri: Rav Kahana: This is even true when he is travelling to his home [where he will surely have something, and surely if he’s going to stay at a hostel where there won’t be food at all].

 Rav Kahana: It happened to me once, that I came home late and I didn’t even find a bit of fish hash.

We learned in the mishna (34.1): “If the first day of Yom Tov was on Shabbos, everyone carried their lulav to Har Habayis before Shabbos and the shamashim laid them out”.

A learner recited a beraisa in the presence of Rav Nachman: They would be laid out on the roof of the stands. 

 Rabbi Nachman: Why would they be placed on the roof? They’re not being dried? You must have confused a beis for a gimmel, you should say on the stands [gav instead of gag]. 

 Rechava quoting Rav Yehuda: The Har Habayis had a double stoa surrounding it. There were two concentric circles of balconies where people could sit [this is where the lulavim were placed]

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

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

 Rabbi Ami: The Aravah used on Hoshana Rabbah [or every day in the Beis Hamikdash] requires a certain measure. It must be taken on its own, not with the lulav. One cannot fulfill his obligation with the Aravah that’s bound in the lulav. 

 Summary 

 Rav Chisda quoting Rav Yitzchok: One can fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav [it is not clear if he means “by picking up the lulav”, or “by picking up the lulav a second time with a different intent”, since the halacha doesn’t follow this opinion, we do not have a clear answer].

 Question: What is the measure? 

 Rav Nachman: Three stems of fresh leaves. 

 Rav Sheishes: Even one leaf and one stem.

 Challenge: How can that be kosher?

 Resolution: One leaf on one stem. [ Rashi: We’re discussing here the aravah used in the Beis Hamikdash, because the aravah in the lulav, we learned above must be 3 tefachim high. But the Poskim say that this kulah applies also to the aravah of the lulav].

 Ayvo [the father of Rav]: I was standing in front of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok [he was an old man who had still been in the Beis Hamikdash] and someone brought him an aravah, he shook it but didn’t make a bracha [there’s a question on how to fulfill this minhag, according to Rashi it is merely waved, according to others you hit the ground with it, according to others some of the leaves should be knocked off].

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

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

 Summary 

 Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One of them said that the aravah was instituted by the Nevi’im, and one said that is was a custom of the Nevi’im [Rashi explains that if it was instituted by the nevi’im it would require a bracha but not if it’s a custom]. 

A proof that Rabbi Yochanan is the one who says it was instituted by the Nevi’im: Rabbi Avahu quoting Rabbi Yochanan: The Aravah was instituted by the Nevi’im. 

 Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Avahu: Did Rabbi Yochanan say that? “Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Nechunya of bikaas Beis Churson: The law of Ten Saplings, Aravah, and Nisuch Hamayim are Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai.” So it’s D’orayso, and not an institution of the nevi’im. 

 Rabbi Avahu was dumbfounded for a little while, then he said: It was forgotten due to Golus and was later reinstated by the nevi’im. 

 Challenge: Rabbi Yochanan said “What I thought is yours is really theirs” [When Rabbi Yochanan heard the teachings of Rav from his disciple Rav Kahana, he declared that the Torah, which he thought was in Eretz Yisroel, was actually chiefly in Bavel. So it seems that it wasn’t forgotten due to Golus].

 Resolution: In the Beis Hamikdash it was a Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai, everywhere else it was instituted later by the nevi’im.* 

 Rabbi Ami: The Aravah used on Hoshana Rabbah [or every day in the Beis Hamikdash] requires a certain measure. It must be taken on its own, not with the lulav. One cannot fulfill his obligation with the Aravah that’s bound in the lulav. 

 Challenge: Since it must be taken on its own, why repeat that the aravah bound with the lulav cannot discharge his obligation?

 Resolution: It teaches that the lulav cannot be picked up a second time for the mitzvah of aravah, but it must be taken on its own.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lYWAQs8o51137Zcjf9k8pqvX2DdjgiCe/view?usp=sharing

* Rashi: This is why a bracha can be made on it. But according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that it’s a minhag, a bracha cannot be said. Tosfos: Some use this as a proof that no bracha is recited on Hallel Rosh Chodesh which is only a minhag [this minhag was discovered by Rav when he came to Sura (nowadays the minhag is universal because it was the practice of Rav’s yeshiva so it spread)] (indeed, one should be careful to pray with a minyan on Rosh Chodesh; while we make a bracha anyway, it is easier to make a bracha b’tzibbur). Rabbeinu Tam: There are minhagim which we make a bracha on, such as the second day of Yom Tov which we only keep because it is a minhag. Besides, reciting Hallel is no different than reading the Torah upon which we make a bracha. Aravah would not require a bracha if it were a minhag because it is a minor symbolic act.

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

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

 Summary 

 Abayye to Rabbah: Why do we take the lulav on all seven days because of zecher l’mikdash, but we don’t take the aravah at all?

 Rabbah: There’s an aravah taken with the lulav every day.

 Abayye: But that’s taken because of the lulav. It is not picked up twice with different intentions.

 Rav Zvid from Rava: A zecher is made only to the mitzvah of lulav because it is a d’orayso. 

 Challenge: Aravah is d’orayso too:

Abba Shaul: It is written “arvei nachal” in plural, to teach about the two aravos one in the lulav and one taken on its own in the Beis Hamikdash.

 Rabbanan: It is a Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. As taught (27.4) by Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Nechunya of bikaas Beis Churson: The law of Ten Saplings [planted within a beis sa’asayim may be plowed up until shvi’is], Aravah, and Nisuch Hamayim are Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai.

 Rav Zvid from Rava: A zecher is made only to the mitzvah of lulav because it is d’orayso on the first day even outside of the Mikdash. 

 Reish Lakish: Kohanim baalei mumin may enter the area between the Ulam and Mizbeach for the mitzvah of aravah [which can only be entered even by kohanim for the purpose of doing the avodah]. 

 Rabbi Yochanan to Reish Lakish: Who permitted such a thing?

 Challenge: Rabbi Yochanan himself! After all, Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Nechunya of bikaas Beis Churson taught that Aravah is Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. [So it’s a mitzvah and it would be permitted for kohanim to enter for that purpose]. 

 Resolution: Who says the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach holding aravos? Perhaps the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach with aravos (34.5). Who says the mitzvah can be done by baalei mumin, perhaps only by regular Kohanim.

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

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

 The aravah is not taken on Shabbos nowadays because we aren’t certain which day is the seventh.

Challenge: Let it be taken in Eretz Yisroel where they do know?

Rav Yosef: Who says the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach holding aravos? Perhaps the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach with aravos [and since there is no mizbeach nowadays it is not possible to make a zecher to this mitzvah]. The beraisa that seems like they circled the mizbeach means that they circled it with lulavim. 

 Summary 

 Abayye to Rav Yosef: “The lulav overrides Shabbos at the beginning of Yom Tov and the aravah at the end of Yom Tov.

It once happened that the seventh day fell on Shabbos; on Friday they brought big aravah branches to the Beis Hamikdash. The Baytusin [dissidents who did not approve of the mitzvah of aravah which is not written explicitly in the Torah] hid the branches under stones.

On Shabbos the common folk noticed and brought them out from under the stones [they were amei ha’aretz who weren’t careful with muktzah but were loyal to the sages]. Then the kohanim took them and set them up around the mizbeach. The Baytusin did this because they didn’t agree that aravah overrides Shabbos.

So we see that the mitzvah was to handle the aravos on Shabbos, otherwise the Baytusin would not have opposed it.

So the Challenge stands: Let them do the mitzvah of aravah nowadays in Eretz Yisroel when the seventh day falls on Shabbos.

 Resolution: Since we don’t do the mitzvah here, they don’t do it either to be in unison with us.

 Challenge: But regarding lulav we did say (34.2) that in Eretz Yisroel it overrides Shabbos on the first day but not elsewhere? 

 Resolution: Actually the lulav doesn’t either override the Shabbos anywhere nowadays. 

Although we previously brought a proof (34.2) from two mishnas, one which said that people brought the lulav to Har Habayis before Shabbos, and one which said that they brought it to the Beis Haknesses. And it was explained that the first mishna is discussing the practice during the times of the Beis Hamikdash, and the second mishna is discussing the practice after the Destruction.

We can explain that both mishnas are referring to the times of the Beis Hamikdash, the second mishna discusses the practice in all other places outside of Yerushalayim.

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

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

 The aravah is not taken on Shabbos nowadays because we aren’t certain which day is the seventh. 

 Summary 

 Challenge: Let it be taken in Eretz Yisroel where they do know?

When Bar Hedya came from Eretz Yisroel: It never happens that the seventh day falls on Shabbos.

When Ravin and all those who came [from the yeshivos in Eretz Yisroel to convey information to the yeshivos in Bavel] came from Eretz Yisroel: It can happen, but the mitzvah is not done. 

The challenge thus stands. 

 Rav Yosef: Who says the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach holding aravos? Perhaps the mitzvah is to surround the mizbeach with aravos [and since there is no mizbeach nowadays it is not possible to make a zecher to this mitzvah]. 

 Abayye to Rav Yosef: The mishna (34.1) lumps lulav and aravah together, so the mitzvos are probably done in the same manner. 

 Response: Not necessarily. 

 Abayye to Rav Yosef: “Every day the mizbeach is surrounded by the kohanim once. On the seventh day it is surrounded seven times”. It seems that a procession holding aravos in their hands would surround the mizbeach. 

 Response: No. They would hold lulavim. 

 Challenge: But Rav Nachman quoted Rabbah bar Avuha: It was with the aravah. 

 Rav Yosef: He says it was the aravah, but I’m telling you it was the lulav [I’m an amora too]. 

 We Learned: Rabbi Elazar: With the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Nosson quoting Rabbi Chanina: With the aravah. And so taught Rav Nachman quoting Rabbah bar Avuha: With the aravah. 

 Rava to Rav Yitzchok son of Rabbah bar bar Chana: Ben Torah! Come and let me tell you of the wonderful things I heard from your father [Rabbah bar bar Chana]. He explained the mishna which says “Every day the mizbeach is surrounded by the kohanim once. On the seventh day it is surrounded seven times”. So your father quoted from Rabbi Elazar: With the lulav.

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

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

 We learned in the mishna (34.1) that the mitzvah of Aravah supersedes the Shabbos in the Beis Hamikdash only on the seventh day of Sukkos. The mitzvah of lulav supersedes the Shabbos only on the first day of Sukkos. 

 Summary 

 Question: Why does the aravah supersede Shabbos on the seventh day? 

 Rabbi Yochanan: To let everyone know that it is a Torah law [this is referring to the aravah taken in the beis hamikdash, not to the aravos we take on Hoshana Rabbah which is a minhag nevi’im].

 Challenge: Then lulav [which is a Torah law too] should also supersede the Shabbos?

 Resolution: Indeed, but there is the gezeirah of Rabbah (34.2).

 Challenge: Why doesn’t Rabbah’s gezeirah apply to Aravah? 

 Resolution: The Aravah is done by the emissaries of Beis Din, while the lulav is done by the common folk.* 

 Challenge: Why doesn’t the aravah supersede Shabbos on all seven days to show that it’s a Torah law?

 Resolution: People would say that lulav is not important.

 Challenge: So let the aravah supersede Shabbos only on the first day; like lulav? 

 Resolution: It wouldn’t demonstrate anything about aravah specifically; people would think that it is only done because lulav is also done on the first day.

 Challenge: Why specifically the seventh day, why not any of the other days?

 Resolution: Since it couldn’t be done on the first day, it was set for the seventh day [the first and last days are easy to remember, another day would be confusing]. 

 Challenge: Why isn’t it done on Shabbos nowadays? (By emissaries of Beis Din. Rashi.) 

 Resolution: We don’t know which day is the seventh (34.2).

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/14BFteFo7lfEWbOLkCQBWC8t7w_dRxnkK/view?usp=sharing 

________

* Rashi adds that besides for the bringing, which is by special emissary, the mitzvah of surrounding the mizbeach is done by the Kohanim. Tosfos: This is necessary to be pointed out, as the gemara continues, that lulav is done by the common folk. Otherwise the lulavim could also be brought by special emissaries before Shabbos. There is a difficulty however with the gemara’s question later “the aravah should be done nowadays on Shabbos too”, Rashi deals with this question.

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

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

Taking the lulav on the first day is a Torah obligation even outside of the Beis Hamikdash.

 Summary 

 Question: Where do we find a Torah obligation on the first day? 

 Response: From the following beraisa: 

 “Ulekachtem” is plural, it means everyone must take the 4 minim (not just the king or kohen gadol). “Lachem” means it must be your own. This the source for the law that one cannot fulfill his obligation with his fellowman’s lulav (33.2). “Bayom” - it must be taken even on Shabbos. “Harishon” - it must be taken on the first day even outside of the Beis Hamikdash (the possuk says that it should be taken on the first day, but also that we should rejoice for seven days. It is now explained that seven day is the mitzvah in the Beis Hamikdash, while for the rest of the world, the mitzvah is only on the first day). “Ha-rishon” - only the first day supersedes Shabbos.

 Challenge: Why do we need a possuk to permit lulav on Shabbos? It’s only a Rabbinic issue of muktzeh (33.5)!

 Rava: This beraisa permits machshirim [preparations] on Shabbos, following the Tanna of this beraisa: 

 Lulav and its machshirim supersede the Shabbos according to Rabbi Eliezer [who famously permits chopping wood to kindle a fire to fashion iron into a knife for the mitzvah of milah]. 

 Question: Rabbi Eliezer derives this law from the word “Bayom”, what do the Chachomim learn from this?

 Response: They learn from it that the lulav is taken only during the day and not at night.

 Question: How does Rabbi Eliezer know this?

 Response: From the possuk “seven days” - it means day and not night.

The Chachomim counter that “seven days” can also mean night, as in the mitzvah of sukkah. 

 Question: How do we know that the mitzvah of sukkah applies to both daytime and nighttime?

 Beraisa: “Sit in the sukkah seven days”, it means even nights. Perhaps it means only days? After all, we see that by lulav it only means days. On the other hand [the word ‘klach’ is like lech lecha], the same expression is also used for the Milu’im, which included nights. 

We are inclined to learn the law of sukkah - a mitzvah which extends throughout the day - from milu’im - which extends throughout the day, rather than from lulav, whose mitzvah can be fulfilled in a moment.

On the other hand, sukkah is more similar to lulav which is a mitzvah for all generations, as opposed to Milu’im which was a one time thing.

For this reason there’s a gezeirah shaveh: The word ‘teishvu’ is used regarding both sukkah and milu’im to teach that the mitzvah of sukkah is both daytime and nighttime.

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

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

 Summary 

 The mishna delineated the procedure of lulav when Yom Tov falls on Shabbos 

 Gemara: 

 Challenge: Why can’t the mitzvah be done on Shabbos? It’s only a Rabbinic issue of muktzeh! 

 Rabbah: We are concerned someone might have a question about the mitzvah and he will carry it 4 amos* to a learned person on Shabbos.

This is also the reason for Shofar [not being blown when Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos]

And this is also the reason for Megillah [not being read when Purim falls on Shabbos].

 Challenge: Then the lulav shouldn’t be taken even when it’s the first day which falls on Shabbos?

 Resolution: The Chachomim specifically instituted that on Shabbos the lulav should be taken at home.

 Challenge: But what of all the years until this was instituted?

 Resolution: Since the Torah-obligation on the first day is universal [even outside of the Beis Hamikdash], the Chachomim did not interfere with the observance of the mitzvah on Shabbos.

But on the other days where there is no obligation outside of the Beis Hamikdash; the Chachomim abolished this mitzvah in deference to Shabbos.

 Challenge: Then the lulav should always be taken on the first day even nowadays [when we no longer have the Beis Hamikdash]?

 Resolution: We don’t know for sure when the first day of Yom Tov is**.

 Challenge: Then why don’t they take the lulav in Eretz Yisroel on the first day?

 Resolution: They do [we’ll see soon that it’s not so]. 

 A proof: 

We learn in one mishna (34.1): If the first day of Yom Tov was on Shabbos, everyone carried their lulav to Har Habayis. 

Yet we learn in a beraisa: If the first day of Yom Tov was on Shabbos, everyone carried their lulav to the Beis Haknesses. 

We must say that the mishna is discussing the practice during the times of the Beis Hamikdash, and the beraisa is discussing the practice after the Destruction*.

Click on the link to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wmhKQbzyIpdE_zHuhlqH0lUJZjkIeRAj/view?usp=sharing

* The gemara should have said that he will come to “carry it out” from one domain to another.

 Rashi offers two explanations: 1. It may not be in a biblical “domain” but in a karmelis. 2. If he picked it up without the intent to carry it out, he is not considered liable for carrying it out.

 Tosfos prefers the first explanation, since one would not be liable for carrying something 4 amos either, if he picked it up without that intention. Tosfos offers another explanation, because people tend to be more cognizant of carrying from one domain to another and a gezeirah is not necessary.

* *Tosfos: Actually we do know because we have a calendar, but we act like we don’t know.

* Tosfos: This conclusion does not remain, actually the mitzvah is not done in Eretz Yisroel either, the gemara soon explains that the beraisa here is referring to the rest of Eretz Yisroel during the times of the beis hamikdash. But Shofar is different in that even in the times of the beis hamikdash it was only blown there but not in the rest of Eretz Yisroel. The difference is that Shofar is not only a matter of muktzeh but also a matter of specialized skill.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

The mitzvos of lulav and aravah may be fulfilled for six or seven days.

Hallel and simcha [eating shlamim from the table of Hakodosh Boruch Hu] are obligatory on all eight days [Tosfos: While it is not always possible to eat shlamim meat on all eight days, it is possible to fulfill the mitzvah of simcha with fine wine or by another method Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1myTrYrVn00U6X7NM4Gpjs-q468SVhyiV/view?usp=sharing_

The mitzvos of sukkah and nisuch hamayim are obligatory for seven days. 

The flute [the music at the simchas beis hashoeiva] may be fulfilled for five or six days [since it is not done on Yom Tov or on Shabbos]. 

 Lulav is seven days if the first day is Shabbos, on other days the lulav was not taken on Shabbos.

 Aravah is seven days if the last day is Shabbos, on other days the aravah was not taken on Shabbos.

If the first day of Yom Tov was on Shabbos, everyone carried their lulav to Har Habayis before Shabbos and the shamashim laid them all out on a platform. The older people placed theirs in a room. The people were taught to say “Anybody who will get my lulav, let him keep it as a gift from me”. The next day they would come early and the shamashim would throw the lulavim towards them and they would scramble to grab a lulav [this was a good procedure for a long time] but sometimes they hit each other [in the end], when Beis Din saw that this causes a sakanah , they instituted for everyone to fulfill the mitzvah in their own homes.

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

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

 Summary 

 We continue a beraisa which discusses the obligations of a child. 

 In a case of safek tumah, it depends where the safek is. If it’s in a reshus hayachid it is tamei. If it’s in reshus horabbim it is tahor. 

 Beraisa [continued]: A child who can be trusted; his safek tumah is tamei in the reshus hayochid and tahor in the reshus horabbim. [If the child cannot yet be trusted, his safek is always tahor. Tosfos]. 

A child who knows how to do nesias kapayim, can get terumah in the grain-barn*.

A child who knows how to shecht (he has experience slaughtering for gentiles); his meat is kosher and may be eaten.

 Rav Huna: Provided that he is supervised by an adult.

A child who can eat a kzayis of grain; his feces and urine require one to distance himself 4 amos. 

 Rav Chisda: Provided that he can eat it within the time necessary to consume a four-egg-volume of bread.

 Rav Chiya brei d’Rav Yeiva: An adult’s feces is considered feces even if he cannot consume that amount as it states “If he increases in wisdom, he increases in discomfort” (the more wisdom one has, the more he must look at his feces. Like the sage who was shown great honor but reminded himself of his feces).

A child who can eat a kzayis of roasted meat; can be counted toward the Pesach. 

 Rabbi Yehuda: He must also be able to select his food - to know the difference between a nut and a rock.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jeXShwnVdT3EK9E8fxTmWlZhKxbEgsV/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: If he cannot do nesias kapayim yet but can guard his terumah, it may be sent to his house for him, but he cannot pick it up at the barn. Rashi says that if he can do nesias kapayim everyone knows he is already a gadol, but it seems from the gemara that we’re discussing a child.

Although there is a gemara that says a child cannot do nesias kapayim, that may mean 1. He cannot do it on his own. 2. He cannot do it constantly. 3. He cannot do it during the High Holidays. The same applies to the rule that one cannot be a Shatz unless his beard grew in. It may mean 1. He cannot do it constantly. 2. He cannot do it during the High Holidays.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

On Shabbos, a woman may take the lulav from her son or husband (this is when there was a mitzvah to take the lulav on Shabbos too) and return it to the water. 

 Rabbi Yehuda: On Shabbos it may only be returned to water. On Yom Tov water may be added . On Chol Hamoed the water may be changed. 

 A child who knows how to shake the lulav, is obligated in the mitzvah.

 Gemara: 

 Challenge: Isn’t it obvious [that a woman may take the lulav]?

 Resolution: Since a woman is not obligated in the mitzvah of lulav, we would have thought it becomes muktzah for her; the mishna teaches that it is not so. (A lulav is muktzah, only that on Yom Tov it may be used for the mitzvah. The wild boys who dance with lulavim on Simchas Torah should be told that it’s muktzah. But for a woman it’s not muktzah on Yom Tov, since it’s useful on Yom Tov for others).

 A child who knows how to shake the lulav, is obligated in the mitzvah. 

 Beraisa: A child who knows how to shake the lulav, is obligated in the mitzvah, if he knows how to wrap himself in a four-cornered garment, he is obligated in tzitzis [on that garment, there is no obligation to buy such a garment in order to add tzitzis]. If he can watch his tefillin [not to fall asleep, or release gas], his father buys him tefillin [because he cannot use his father’s tefillin; he wore them all day]. As soon as he can speak, his father teaches him Torah and krias Shema [to get him accustomed to the idea that speech is only for Torah and Tefillah]. 

 Question: What kind of Torah is he taught?

 Rav Hamnuna: The Torah that Moshe commanded us is an inheritance for the entire congregation of Yaakov (The first lesson we teach a child is that Torah is the property of every single Jew). 

 Question: What is meant by krias Shema? 

 Response: The first possuk [Shema Yisroel].

 Beraisa [continued]: If he knows how to guard his body from serious forms of tumah, he doesn’t disqualify taharos by means of his body. Once he knows how to guard his hands, the taharos may be eaten even if he touched them with his hands.

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

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

We learned in the mishna (33.2): “Rabbi Yosi: On the first day of Yom Tov which falls on Shabbos, if one forgot and carried out his lulav, he is pottur because he took it with mitzvah-permission.”

 Summary 

 Rav Huna: Rabbi Yosi: If a kohen ate an Olah bird thinking it was a Chatos bird, he is pottur [he need not bring a korban meilah because he was “mistaken with regard to a mitzvah”]. 

 Challenge: Why must this be taught again? It was already taught in our mishna. 

 Resolution: With regard to the lulav he actually did a mitzvah but the kohen who ate an olah didn’t do a mitzvah. 

 Challenge: Rabbi Yosi: If one slaughtered a Tomid on Shabbos, which wasn’t properly checked (it must be examined for 4 days first to ensure that it does not have a mum), he is guilty and another Tomid is necessary. 

 Rav Huna: That case cannot be considered here, because it was learned about that: Rav Shmuel bar Chasoi amar Rav Hamnuna Sava amar Rav Yitzchok bar Ashian amar Rav Huna amar Rav: It is a case where the animal was taken from the place of unexamined animals*. [It is thus not an error in a mitzvah matter but carelessness and negligence]. 

* Tosfos: Even if it is later found to be unblemished, the sacrifice is still not valid, because the 4 day examination is a condition in the korban which is derived from korban pesach.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mar bar Ameimar to Rav Ashi: My father would grasp the arba minim while praying. 

 Challenge: One shouldn’t pray while holding tefillin or a sefer Torah (because it will disturb his concentration), nor should he urinate or sleep while wearing tefillin. 

 Shmuel: Nor should one hold a knife, a plate of food, a loaf of bread or money while praying.

 So how can one hold the arba minim while praying? 

 Resolution: Those are not a mitzvah to hold and they distract from the prayers, but the arba minim are a mitzvah and not a distraction. 

 Beraisa: Rabbi Elozor bar Tzadok (he was a veteran of the old Yerushalayim): The custom of anshei Yerushalayim (30.1) was: One left his house holding his lulav, he entered the beis haknesses holding his lulav and that is how he would recite krias shema and tefillah. If he had an aliyah or he would say birchas kohanim, he would put it down for a moment. If he went to visit the sick or comfort mourners, he would be holding his lulav. When he entered the beis midrash (there you can’t hold the lulav while learning), he would send the lulav home with a child, a servant or someone.

 Question: What are we learning here? 

 Response: The great alacrity with which the ancient Jews practiced mitzvos (33.2).

We learned in the mishna (33.2): “Rabbi Yosi: On the first day of Yom Tov which falls on Shabbos, if one forgot and carried out his lulav, he is pottur because he took it with mitzvah-permission.”

 Abayye: This is only before he was yotzei. 

 Challenge: He is yotzei as soon as he picks it up! 

 Abayye: He can pick it up upside down, and not be yotzei. 

 Rava: He can be holding it right side up, but in a box. 

 Challenge: Rava is the one who says (30.3) that “Holding by means of something else, is still considered holding.”! 

 Resolution: Only when it is held in a respectable way, but not in our case.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

If the first day of Yom Tov was on Shabbos , everyone would bring their lulav to the Beis Haknesses before Shabbos. Then they would come in the morning, everyone would recognize their lulav and take it. This is since one must own his lulav on the first day, and cannot use someone else’s lulav. On the other days of Yom Tov [after the churban; 32.6] one can use his fellow’s lulav.

 Rabbi Yosi: On the first day of Yom Tov which falls on Shabbos, if one forgot and carried out his lulav, he is pottur because he took it with mitzvah-permission. 

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: “Ulekachtem” is plural, it means everyone must take the 4 minim*. “Lachem” means it must be your own. This the source for the law that one cannot fulfill his obligation with his fellowman’s lulav, unless it was gifted to him**.

It once happened that Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rabbi Akiva were on a ship together (they were travelling to Rome on behalf of the Klal) and only Rabban Gamliel [who was the nasi] was able to procure a lulav for a thousand sus. He used it, then he gifted it to Rabbi Yehoshua [who was the Av Beis Din], he used it, then he gifted it to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya [who was the assistant nasi], he used it, then he gifted it to Rabbi Akiva [who became the Chochom of the Sanhedrin after Rabbi Eliezer was deposed], he then returned it to Rabban Gamliel*.”

 Challenge: Why are we taught that he returned it in the end?

 Resolution: It is to teach us that a conditional gift is considered a gift. As we learn:

 Rava: “Take this esrog on condition you return it to me”**. If he returns it after using it, then he has fulfilled the mitzvah. If he doesn’t return it, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah.

 Challenge: Why are we told the price Rabban Gamliel paid for the 4 minim? 

 Resolution: To teach us how they loved mitzvos. 

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ByUbItmsGfBJlHutsp0_tusalMv50yOv/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: Regarding sukkah, the Torah says openly “Every citizen must sit in the sukkah, and a limud is not necessary.

* *Tosfos: It is our practice to buy one set of 4 minim which is shared by the whole town. Since everyone buys it with the intention of being yotzei we say that their intention is surely to gift it to the person who is currently using it.

* Tosfos: The original gift was given with the understanding that they would all be able to use it before returning it.

** Tosfos: Although this wording doesn’t follow the technicalities of tnai, the gemara isn’t concerned with that now, but it must surely be made properly. This condition is not considered an “impossible condition” like the case of a get which is given on condition that the paper is returned.

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

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

 Another takanah established by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai after the churban: that the day of the Omer offering should be forbidden to eat chadash all day. 

 Summary 

According to the shittah of the gemara now, chadash is permitted at the break of day on the 16th of Nissan, since there is no Omer offering*.

 The reason for this takanah is: When the beis hamikdash will be rebuilt people will remember that in the previous year (eshtakad is a portmanteau of shatta kodmo) they ate at daybreak and they will not know that now it is necessary to wait for the Omer.

 Challenge: When will the beis hamikdash be rebuilt that would pose a problem? If it is rebuilt on the 16th of Nissan, then it already became permissible at daybreak! 

If it is rebuilt on the 15th, then it should be permissible by chatzos already, as we learned in a mishna: “Those who live far away are permitted from chatzos and on, because beis din does not tarry with the Omer”.

 Resolution: In case it is rebuilt late in the day on the fifteenth or on the night of the sixteenth and they won’t have time for the Omer process.

 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai follows the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda that chadash on the sixteenth is forbidden min haTorah [not like we learned previously that it would be permitted at daybreak] because it’s written “up until the day itself”, it means up to and including that day.

 Challenge: But Rabban Yochanan doesn’t follow the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned:

“After the churban Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of the Omer offering should be forbidden to eat chadash all day.

 Rabbi Yehuda (the word “lo” is omitted because he came later): But it is a Torah prohibition as it states: “up until the day itself”, it means up to and including that day.”

 Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda was in error, he thought Rabban Yochanan was referring to a rabbinic enactment, actually it was the Torah law.

 Challenge: But it states that Rabban Yochanan “instituted” it?

 Resolution: He instituted it in practice on the first year after the churban, but the practice was based on the law of the Torah. 

_________

* Tosfos: A Beis Hamikdash is not necessary for korbanos but there must be a mizbeach, since we don’t have the mizbeach we cannot bring korbanos.

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

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

 Summary 

When hekdesh is redeemed, it becomes chullin and the money becomes kodesh. With Shvi’is the original shvi’is always remains kodesh (32.5), but the money it was redeemed upon may become chullin when it is redeemed. How to redeem it is a matter of debate between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan.

 Rabbi Elazar: Shvi’is can only be redeemed by means of “sale” (not by “redemption” using your own money only by selling it to someone else).

 Rabbi Yochanan: It can be redeemed both by means of “sale” or by “redemption”. 

 Rabbi Elazar bases his opinion on the possuk “When you sell your things” which is written near Yovel (which has the same laws as shvi’is). 

 Rabbi Yochanan bases his opinion on the possuk “Yovel is Kodesh” this means that the same means of redemption which apply to Kodesh, apply to Yovel and Shevi’is.

 Challenge: Why doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan learn Rabbi Elazar’s hekesh? 

 Resolution: It is necessary for the teaching of Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina in the beraisa: 

 Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina: Come and see how heavy is the dust of Shvi’is (because using shvi’is improperly is only an issur eseh, it’s considered like dust): One who deals with fruit of shvi’is will be forced to sell off all his chattel (if he tries to make money on shvi’is, Hakodosh Boruch Hu will impoverish him) this is why the possuk “When you sell your things” is written near Yovel.

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

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

There was a machlokes with regard to how fruits of shvi’is may be used. According to the Tanna Kamma they may only be used in a manner similar to eating in which “It is destroyed as it is enjoyed”. According to Rabbi Yosi it can be used for anything other than medicinal purposes which are only necessary for a minority of people.

 Summary 

 Question: Which Tanna does the following beraisa follow?

 “For eating”: But not for medicinal purposes. Nor for squirting [wine on the fire to create a pleasant aroma]. Nor to be used for apiktuzin [a vomit inducer to enable the noblemen to eat more]. 

 Response: This follows Rabbi Yosi. According to the Chachomim, soaking and laundering is also forbidden.

This is a proof that the statement (32.1) “Firewood does not have kedushas shvi’is” is actually debated by the Tannaim. According to the Chachomim, this is true, since firewood is not enjoyed while it is destroyed. But according to Rabbi Yosi, firewood is also limited by the laws of shvi’is.

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

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

 Since the major use of wood is as firewood, it does not have kedushas shvi’is. 

 Summary 

 This is a matter of debate between the Tannaim, as we learn in a beraisa:* Fruit of shvi’is cannot be used to soak flax, or for laundering. Rabbi Yosi: It may be used for these purposes.

The Tanna Kamma bases his opinion on the word “For eating”: these fruits may not be used for any other purpose. Rabbi Yosi bases his opinion on the word “For yourself”: so the fruits may be used for any purpose. 

The Tanna Kamma explains the word “For yourself”: that all uses “for yourself” have to be similar to “For eating”- in that it is enjoyed as it is destroyed (32.1).

Rabbi Yosi explains the word “For eating”, that it cannot be used for medicinal purposes [which is only necessary for a minority of people]. This is further explained in a beraisa brought by the gemara.

_________

* The proof will be explained tomorrow.

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

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

An esrog of shmittah cannot be bought from an am ha’aretz. If he doesn’t wish to give it for free, the price of the esrog may be included in the lulav’s price. This is because the lulav used on shmittah is still from the sixth year.

 Summary 

 Challenge: If the lulav would be from the seventh year, it would be forbidden? It is mere wood which does not attain kedushas shvi’is as we learn in the beraisa: 

Leaves of reeds and leaves of the grapevine, that were collected in a silo: If they were collected to be eaten, they have kedushas shvi’is. If they were collected to be used for firewood they do not have kedushas shvi’is. 

 Resolution: There is a special exception for things used as firewood. This is based on the possuk of “For you, for eating”, it means only something that is used by you in the same manner as food - in that it is enjoyed as it is destroyed. But the benefit of firewood comes only after it is destroyed. [Rashi: But a lulav is enjoyed as it is destroyed, since it is used as a broomstick, it decays as it is being swept].

 Challenge: Oily woods (used for illumination) are used while they’re being destroyed?

 Rava: Ordinarily wood is not used for illumination; the majority use of wood is only after it is destroyed.

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

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

31.4: An esrog of shmittah cannot be bought from an am ha’aretz. If he doesn’t wish to give it for free, the price of the esrog may be included in the lulav’s price.

 Summary 

 Challenge: What about lulav, why may one pay an am ha’aretz for it?

 Resolution: The lulav used on shmittah is still from the sixth year. 

 Challenge: The esrog is also from the sixth year?

 Resolution: With regard to an esrog we follow the time of its picking. 

 Challenge: Both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer agree that the time of picking is disregarded and only the time of its growth matters. As we learn in a mishna: 

 Rabban Gamliel: The Esrog is like a tree in three ways and like a vegetable in one way. It is like a tree with regard to Orlah, Revai and Shvi’is [all these depend on the time of its growth]. It is like a vegetable with regard to the year of maaser - it depends on the time of its picking. 

 Rabbi Eliezer: It is like a tree in all respects. 

 Resolution: Our Mishna follows a different Tanna, in the beraisa: 

 Rabbi Yosi: Avtulamos ruled in the name of five zekeinim, that the esrog follows the time of picking with regard to Maaser. But our teachers in Usha [the Sanhedrin] ruled that it depends on picking with regard to both Maaser and Shvi’is. 

 Question: Who said anything about Shvi’is?

 Response: There were some words missing from the quote. It should read:

 Rabbi Yosi: Avtulamos ruled in the name of five zekeinim, that the esrog follows the time of picking with regard to Maaser and the time of growing with regard to Shvi’is. But our teachers in Usha [the Sanhedrin] ruled that it depends on picking with regard to both Maaser and Shvi’is. 

 Esrog is compared to yerek because it’s different from all trees in that it requires more watering, like a vegetable garden.

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

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

 Rav Chisda: Since the churban certain things have swapped their names. 

 Summary 

 Rava Bar Yosef: I’ll add one as well.

 Bavel is now called Bursif, while Bursif is called Bavel. It makes a difference with regard to gittin*.

 Mishna: 

 Rabbi Yishmael: Three hadassim, two aravos, one lulav and one esrog. Even if two hadassim are missing their tips, it is kosher.

 Rabbi Tarfon: It is kosher even if all hadassim are missing their tips.

 Rabbi Akiva: Just as we take only one lulav and one esrog, we take only one hadas and one aravah. 

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yishmael: “Pri eitz hadar” is singular “Kapas Temarim” is singular “Anaf eitz avos” is triplicate, “Arvei nachal” is plural, which indicates two aravos. The hadassim are kosher even if the tips of two are broken off.

 Rabbi Tarfon: They’re kosher even if all three are broken off.

 Rabbi Akiva: Just as we take only one lulav and one esrog, we take only one hadas and one aravah. 

 Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The esrog is not bound together with the others because it is not joined to them by a vav. We know that all four must be taken together because the word “v’lakachtem” is used which indicates “lekicha tamah”. 

 Challenge: What does Rabbi Yishmael want? If a broken hadas is possul, then all three should be whole, if not, why does one need to be whole?

 Bira’ah quoting Rabbi Ami: Rabbi Yishmael regretted his original opinion [but they continued repeating it as memorized, they merely added his later opinion]. (At first he held that broken hadassim are kosher, but later he held that one whole hadas should be used).

 Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon.

Shmuel follows his opinion: Shmuel said to the hadas sellers: Be moderately priced, otherwise I will announce that the halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon.

 Question: Isn’t that because Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion is lenient? Rabbi Akiva’s opinion seems to be more lenient**.

 Response: It is easier to find three broken hadassim than to find one whole hadas.

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fXFJEWkqihBOolB5bC7IP67JRod7KoRS/view?usp=drivesdk

* Rashi: There are certain laws that apply only outside of Eretz Yisroel. Bavel [or Bursif] is considered Eretz Yisroel in this regard. Tosfos: This explanation is correct, but Rashi elsewhere explains that the law was said regarding writing the names of their cities. Tosfos points out that Bavel is not a city but a country, and the country is never written in the get.

* *Tosfos: This is not a side question but rather part of the proof that Shmuel follows Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion, otherwise he should have threatened them with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion!

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

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

Beraisa: Three meals worth of shemittah-fruit-money may be given to an am ha’aretz… provided the am ha’aretz is leaving it hefker, but if his garden is kept locked, then even the smallest coin shouldn’t be given to him.

 Summary 

 Rav Sheishes: But we learned a mishna which lists seven types of wild grown produce, and permits them to be purchased from anyone [even an am ha’aretz] (so we see that there’s no limit on how much can be spent on hefker produce). 

 Rav Sheishes answered his own question: This mishna is referring to a quantity of Mann [the amount of food necessary for meals]. 

 Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: This mishna is referring to a quantity of Mann. 

 Question: Where do we find that mann refers to meals?

 Response: “Vayimann lahem hamelech”.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

If one buys a lulav from an [am ha’aretz] in the Shemittah year, the seller should give him the esrog for free because one is not permitted to buy fruit from an am ha’arts during Shemittah. (Since sukkos is at the beginning of the seventh year, the lulav is a sixth year lulav and permissible, but the esrog is counted from the time of its picking, making it a seventh year esrog [31.6]).

 Gemara: 

 Question: What if he doesn’t wish to give it for free?

 Rav Huna: The price of the esrog may be included in the lulav’s price.

 Question: Why can’t one just pay for the esrog straight out **?

 Response: Because money of shemittah -fruit cannot be given to an am ha’aretz*.

 Beraisa: More than three meals worth of shemittah-fruit money cannot be given to an am ha’aretz [because the money has kedushas shevi’is and is transferred to whatever is bought with the money. So we don’t trust the am ha’aretz to use it only for food. Since he may need to purchase three meals at a time - before Shabbos - we allow him this amount of money]. If he was given more money the giver must make a pronouncement that the money should be redeemed for other fruits.* Those fruits then acquire kedushas shvi’is. But this is only if the am ha’aretz is leaving it hefker, but if his garden is kept locked, then even the smallest coin shouldn’t be given to him (because if it’s not hefker, it’s ossur b’hana’ah - [the Tosfos on this is included in tomorrow’s shiur]). 

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQt72CWDtlAq-wLw5-VO26sBzXbksLlv/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: He can’t make transactions with his property which is no longer in his possession. This is a punishment for him because he gave the money to the am ha’aretz. 

* *Tosfos: It isn’t considered business with shemittah -fruit as long as the seller didn’t pick the fruit to sell. The Yerushalmi adds that even if one picked the fruit himself, he may sell it, if it’s mixed with fruit picked by someone else. The “sochrei shvi’is” criticized by the gemara is a case where they set up an official shop which is always forbidden. Or perhaps it refers to people who buy and sell at a profit.

* Rashi: Since the money has kedushas Shevi’is it must be spent before the zman biur. Tosfos: What about the things that don’t have biur? The reason is because we’re worried he would spend the money on things he is not allowed to use shevi’is money for.

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

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

 Summary 

 They asked of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: If one heard [hallel] but did not say it, what is the law?

 Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: Everybody is in agreement that he was yotze. 

 Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quoting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from Bar Kappara: The principle of shomeia k’oneh is learned from the verse “The words read by the king” but actually Shafan read it to the king.

 Challenge: Perhaps he read it himself afterwards. 

 Resolution: The other verse states “When you heard”, it means he heard them but did not read them.

 Rava: One shouldn’t pause between “Baruch Haba” and “Bsheim Hashem”. (We don’t welcome everyone who comes just to form a crowd, only those who come b’sheim Hashem).

[The parenthetical remark in the gemara here should be skipped, its proper place is later].

 Rava: One shouldn’t pause between “Yehei Shmei Rabbah” and “Mevorach”. 

 Rav Safra: “Moshe! Are you saying correctly?!” (He’s talking to Rava, Moshe means “Great man”) In both cases he is merely concluding his phrase*.

We learned in the mishna (30.6): “Where the custom is to repeat verses, he should repeat, and where that is not the custom, he should not repeat.”

 Beraisa: Rebbi Would repeat the Ana Hashems. Rabbi Elazar ben Porta would add more verses.

 Abayye: He would add from Odcha and on. 

 We learned in the mishna (30.6): “Where it is the custom to recite a bracha he should recite a bracha.” 

 Abayye: This refers to the final bracha [melech mehullal batishbachos] but beforehand one must say a bracha as Rav Yehuda quoted from Shmuel: One must recite a bracha before [the Hebrew word “over”] doing the mitzvos. 

 Question: Where do we find that the word ‘over’ means ‘before’?

 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: Vaya’avor es hakushi. 

 Abayye: V’hu avar lifneihem. 

 Or: Vaya’avor malkom lifneihem vaHashem b’rosham. 

_________

* Tosfos : From the gemara in Sotah it seems that Rava came to accept Rav Safra’s opinion.

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

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

 Summary 

 Rava: Mighty halachos can be learned from the minhag of hallel. 

Rashi: Originally, not everyone was able to say Hallel on their own, this is why our mishna (30.6) teaches that if one hears it from an adult male he is yotzei and if he hears it from a woman he must repeat the words himself. In Rava’s time everyone was able to say Hallel on their own, but they still followed certain customs to remember how Hallel was originally said. The original custom was that the crowd [of the uneducated] was silent while the Shatz recited Hallel aloud [and the educated said the words silently along with him], and after every phrase, they [the uneducated] would respond “Hallelukah”. The first “Hallelukah” was proclaimed even by the educated. They [the uneducated] would also repeat the first verse of every chapter. Rava now delineates the current custom [of his time]:

The Shatz says Hallelukah, and everyone shouts Hallelukah. This shows that originally everyone responded to the first Hallelukah.

The Shatz says Hallelu avdei Hashem and everyone shouts Hallelukah. This shows that originally the uneducated responded “Hallelukah” after every phrase [read to them by an adult male].

The Shatz says Hodu LaHashem and everyone repeats it. This shows that originally the uneducated repeated the first verse of every chapter.

The Shatz says Ana Hashem hoshia na and everyone repeats it. This shows that originally the uneducated repeated the entire Hallel [if it was read to them by a woman].

The Shatz says Ana Hashem hatzlicha na and everyone repeats it. This shows that if one wishes to repeat the verses he may do so (30.6).

The Shatz says Boruch Habo and they [are silent and] respond “B’sheim Hashem”. This shows the principle of shomeia k’oneh for people who cannot repeat at all.

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

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

 Summary 

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: B’emes Omru [this is an expression that denotes a law accepted by the Sanhedrin] a boy can be motzi his father with Birkas Hamazon*.

 An eved can be motzi his master and a wife can be motzi her husband with Birkas Hamazon, but a curse should come upon such a man (because he’s scorning Avodas Hashem, he should be the kohen gadol in his house). 

 Rava: Mighty halachos can be learned from the minhag of hallel**.

_________

* Rashi: In masichta Brachos the gemara explains that this is only if the father is not obligated in birkas hamazon d’oraysa. ( Tosfos there discusses whether the child can be motzi his father, if his meal also only has a d’rabanan obligation on birkas hamazon, because then he has two d’rabanan obligations).

* *Rashi: From our custom nowadays, we can learn what the original customs were, see tomorrow’s shiur.

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

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

 The mishna discusses shaking the lulav; the naanuim. 

 Summary 

 We learned there (a mishna in Yevamos): [There is a mitzvah of tenufah for the] Shtei Halechem and the Kivsei Atzeres, this is how it’s done: The loaves are placed on the lambs, and everything is lifted up together. He moves them to and fro, up and down, as the possuk states: ‘Hunaf’ [horizontal movement] and ‘Huram’ [vertical movement].

 Rabbi Yochanan: It is moved around in honor of He to Whom all directions belong. It is raised and lowered in of He to Whom heaven and earth belong. 

In Eretz Yisroel they said: Rabbi Chama bar Ukva quoting Rabbi Yosi b’rebbi Chanina: It is moved around to protect against storm winds. It is raised and lowered to protect against bad dew. 

 Rabbi Yosi bar Avin or Rabbi Yosi bar Zvila: This teaches us that the remnants of a mitzvah protect against adversity; although the shtei halechem and the korbanos are kosher without tenufah, this extra part of the mitzvah is a protection against adversity; stormwinds and bad dews [see here for more on this subject]. https://torasavigdor.org/parshas-reeh-3-nation-of-volunteers-2/

 Rava: The same procedure [and protection] applies to lulav

 Rav Acha bar Yaakov would point his lulav as he waved it, he would say “This is an arrow in the Satan’s eye”.

This practice should not be emulated as it can cause the Satan to bring great tests upon one who does so (it is a principle not to curse the Satan because he is a malach doing his job faithfully).

 Mishna: 

Someone who was travelling and did not have a lulav, he should take the lulav when he comes home [even] at his table.

If he did not take the lulav in the morning he can take it in the afternoon, all day is kosher. 

 Gemara: 

 Challenge: It seems that one must stop his meal in order to shake the lulav, but we learned [in Shabbos]: “If he began his meal, he need not stop [to pray]”.

 Rav Safra: He need not stop when there is still time to finish the meal, but here it is already close to nighttime.

 Rava: There is no difficulty; lulav is d’oraysa, tefillah is d’rabbanan.

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

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

 Summary 

 Rabbah: The lulav shouldn’t be pushed into the bundle, because the leaves that come loose will form a chatzitzah. 

 Rava: Min b’mino eino chotzetz - Leaves of the same kind cannot be considered a chatzitzah. 

 Rabbah: The lulav shouldn’t be sawed off once it’s in the bundle, because loose lulav leaves will remain and form a chatzitzah. 

 Rava: Min b’mino eino chotzetz - Leaves of the same kind cannot be considered a chatzitzah. 

 Rabbah: The hadas set aside for the mitzvah should not be smelled, but the esrog may be smelled.

The hadas is used for smelling, so it is set aside from smelling, but since an esrog is for eating too, it is set aside only from eating. [When one does a mitzvah with an object, he elevates that object. He thus sets it aside from its normal use in order to elevate it].

 Rabbah: The hadas may be smelled (on Shabbos) while it’s attached to the ground, but the esrog may not be smelled.

The hadas is used for smelling, so we’re not worried he will cut it off, but since an esrog is for eating too, he may cut it off the tree in order to eat it.

 Rabbah: The lulav should be held in the right hand, and the esrog in the left hand.

The lulav has three mitzvos but the esrog only has one.

 Rabbi Yirmiyah to Rabbi Zrika: Why do we mention only the lulav in the bracha on the 4 minim (Al netilas lulav)? 

 [Rabbi Zrika]: Because it is taller than the rest.

 [Rabbi Yirmiyah]: Let him lift the esrog up high?

 Rabbi Zrika: It is the tallest object and most conspicuous.

 Mishna: 

Where are the naanuim made? At the beginning and end of [Rashi: the chapter of] Hodu LaHashem. Beis Hillel: And at Ana Hashem hoshia na. Beis Shamai: Also at Ana Hashem hatzlicha na. 

 Rabbi Akiva: I observed Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua; although the people shook their lulavim, they only shook their lulavim at Ana Hashem hoshia na. 

 Gemara: 

 Question: Who said anything about shaking? 

 Response: This is following up on the mishna (24.4): “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.” So the question here is, when is the lulav shaken.

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

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

 Rabbah: One shouldn’t hold the lulav with a towel, it must be held fully - lekicha tamah. 

 Summary 

 Rava: Holding by means of something else, is still considered holding. 

(According to Tosfos, the towel extends beyond the lulav and creates a sort of handle which he is holding; but merely grabbing it with a towel wrapped around one’s hand is not under discussion here).

 Rava: I have proof from the following mishna: 

“If the bundle of eizov (11.2) is too short to be dipped, it can be lengthened by means of a thread or it can be held with a fork.” 

But the Torah uses the expression of lekicha with regard to Eizov, so we see that it is still considered holding it.

 Challenge: There it is attached to the eizov, but in our case the towel is not attached to the lulav?

-(According to Rashi, this mishna is discussing a completely different case than holding something wrapped in a lulav, but according to Tosfos, the cases are similar because the lulav isn’t just wrapped in a towel but extended by means of a handle)._

A different proof: 

“[If the ashes of the Parah] fell from the tube into the vessel [where it is to be mixed into the Mayim Chaim], it is possul. 

It seems that if one spilled the tube intentionally, it would be kosher even the though the Torah uses the expression of “lekicha”. 

This is indeed a satisfactory proof.

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

 Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav may only be tied with its own kind. 

 Rabbi Meir: Even with a string.

 Rabbi Meir: The anshei Yerushalayim would bind their lulavim with gold wire.

 They said to him: It was actually tied with its own kind, they covered it with strips of gold for ornamental purposes.

 Gemara: 

 Rava: Even the [loose] bark of the palm tree, or its roots [is considered ‘its kind’ by Rabbi Yehuda].

 Rava: Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that “Lulav tzarich agad”, since that’s the case, binding it with another kind would mean that you’re taking 5 minim instead of 4 (see 25.3 for the explanation of Tosfos). 

 Rava: I have proof that the bark and roots are considered the lulav’s ‘kind’ from this beraisa: 

“You should dwell in sukkos” Rabbi Meir: It [the schach] can be made of any kind. Rabbi Yehuda: Only from the 4 species of the lulav. This can be derived logically. Since lulav which is only taken during the daytime, must be of the four species, certainly sukkah which applies even during the night, must be of the 4 species.

 They said to him: A kal vachomer [a logical argument which intends to apply a stricter standard] which results in a leniency, is not a valid kal vachomer. This will result in a leniency, because what if he doesn’t have the 4 species, should he remain without a sukkah? The Torah says “You should dwell in sukkos”, it means that everybody, even those who don’t have access to the 4 species, should build sukkos. 

Additionally there’s a proof from the possuk in Ezra which mentions other species as well “Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves, oil leaves, hadassim, lulavim and aravos” (10.3).

 (Rava’s proof will be continued tomorrow)

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

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

 Summary 

An esrog that was pierced by the teeth of rats: Rav: It is not hadar [and thus possul]. 

 Challenge: But “Rabbi Chanina would dip the esrog [in oil] [and chew a piece of it] and then use the esrog”. (So we see that even an esrog pierced by teeth is kosher).

 Question: Isn’t Rabbi Chanina opposed by the mishna (28.1) which disqualifies a pierced esrog? 

 Response: The mishna can be referring to the first day of Yom Tov, while Rabbi Chanina used the esrog on the second day.

But according to Rav, since it’s disqualified by not being hadar, it should be possul on the second day as well (the arba minim are disqualified for all of yom tov only if it is possul because of ‘hadar’, see 24.5)?

 Resolution: An esrog that was pierced is kosher on the second day, but if it was pierced by rats, it’s disgusting and not hadar. 

Some say: An esrog that was pierced by the teeth of rats: Rav: It is hadar despite being chewed upon, because “Rabbi Chanina would dip the esrog [and chew a piece of it] and then use the esrog”. (So we see that even an esrog pierced by teeth is kosher). 

 Question: Isn’t Rabbi Chanina opposed by the mishna (28.1) which disqualifies a pierced esrog? 

 Response: The mishna can be referring to the first day of Yom Tov, while Rabbi Chanina used the esrog on the second day.

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): A small esrog: Rabbi Meir: It must be the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be the size of an egg. 

 Rafram bar Papa: The same machlokes can be found regarding avanim mekurzalos (stones that are used as toilet paper, either ‘smooth stones’ or ‘elongated stones’. While stones may not be used on Shabbos, Chazal allowed for what is necessary for personal hygiene): 

 Beraisa: Three avanim mekurzalos may be taken* in to the restroom on Shabbos. Rabbi Meir: Stones the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: Stones the size of an egg.

We learned in the mishna (28.1): A large esrog: Rabbi Yehuda: He must be able to hold two in one hand. Rabbi Yosi: Even if he can only hold one in both hands, it’s kosher.

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi: Rabbi Akiva once lugged an esrog to the synagogue on his shoulder [it was so large]. Rabbi Yehuda: That is no proof, the Chachomim said to him that he cannot fulfill the mitzvah with such an esrog which is not hadar. 

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o0LtEvylz1gZIZ3sBYUYUWFVh_4bIeac/view?usp=sharing 

__________

* According to Rashi the issue here is muktzeh, because he is carrying it less than 4 amos in a karmelis [they relieved themselves on open fields]. 

 Tosfos: The beraisa states “to take in”, additionally, the word ‘beis hakisei’ is used which does indicate a room. Tosfos explains that the permission regarding these stones was to carry them from a karmelis to a reshus hayachid. Actually handling muktzeh is more severe than carrying in a karmelis, so Rashi should admit that it is permissible if he believes muktzeh was permitted here. Nowadays when it’s possible to prepare before Shabbos, this special permission does not apply.

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

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

 Summary 

 We learned (29.4): A black [Ethiopian] esrog is possul. 

 Challenge: Beraisa: An Ethiopian esrog is kosher, if it looks like an Ethiopian esrog [it’s black], it’s possul. 

Abayye: Our mishna is referring to a black esrog that didn’t grow in Ethiopia, it merely looks Ethiopian.

 Rava: For us [in Eretz Yisroel] it is possul [even if it’s actually from Ethiopia] for them [in Bavel, where they’re accustomed to Ethiopian esrogim], it is kosher.

 We learned (29.4): An unripe esrog*: is possul according to Rabbi Akiva. The Chachomim permit its use. 

 Rabbah: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon are in agreement.

 Rabbi Shimon: A small esrog is pottur from maaser [this agrees with Rabbi Akiva that it is possul with regard to esrog]. 

 Abayye to Rabbah: Perhaps it is not so, perhaps it is only possul according to Rabbi Akiva with regard to esrog which must be hadar. And perhaps Rabbi Shimon only holds this position with regard to maaser which must be able to reproduce. 

It is therefore not a valid comparison. 

 We learned (29.4): If it was grown in a form and is now shaped like some other creature, it’s possul. 

 Rava: If it was grown in a form but is shaped like an esrog, it’s kosher.

 Question: It states explicitly “If it was grown in a form and is now shaped like some other creature”, but if it’s shaped like an esrog, it’s kosher.

 Response: This is a case where ridges developed because of the form, Rava is saying that it’s still kosher.

_________

* Tosfos explains that an unripe esrog cannot be used regardless of its size, the unripeness alone disqualifies it.

As a zechus for the Refuah of Yekusel Yehudah ben Perel 

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

https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor

 Summary 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): If the pitom is broken off, it’s possul. 

 Rabbi Yitzchok ben Elazar: The pestle was broken off (1. The pestle means the part that goes in - what we call the ukatz. 2. It refers to the stem of the pitom, if the flower falls off, it’s kosher but if the stem breaks off, it’s possul. 3. It refers to the part of the ukatz that’s in the esrog).

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): If it was peeled, it’s possul. 

 Rava: An esrog which was somewhat peeled, like a browned date, is kosher.

 Challenge: But in our mishna we learned, it’s possul. 

 Resolution: It depends if it’s peeled off completely or partially*.

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): If it was split, or it was pierced and a bit is missing; it’s possul. 

 Ulla bar Chanina: If it was pierced through and through (not in middle where the meat of the fruit is, there even a bit is a problem), even the smallest bit missing, disqualifies it. If it is not through and through, the hole must be the size of a small coin called Issar. 

Click here to listen with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fMEWhajesGrMr0rXJZhlVs_IWrwd8pCQ/view?usp=sharing

* Rashi: If the thin covering is peeled off completely, the esrog is kosher, because the entire fruit is uniform in color, otherwise it looks spotted (28.5).

 Rabeinu Chananel (Tosfos): If it’s peeled off partially, it’s kosher, as we learn from Chullin.

Please make a generous donation at RabbiMillerCampaign.com

Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at gemara.RabbiMillerCampaign.com

 Today is the day! 

The TORAS AVIGDOR 48 Hour fundraiser is now live!

Please make a generous donation at https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor

Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at *https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor*

 Summary 

We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher.

According to the opinion (regarding terumah - 28.4) that it becomes muchshar; such an esrog becomes muchshar. According to the opinion that it is ruined; such an esrog is ruined. 

We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher.

According to the opinion (regarding orlah - 28.2) that it must be fit for consumption; such an esrog is fit for consumption. According to the opinion that it must be his property; such an esrog is his property according to the Chachomim (who argue on Rabbi Meir, 28.2). 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): If a chazazis came on most of the esrog, it’s possul. If a chazazis came on a small part of the esrog, it’s kosher. 

 Rav Chisda (See 27.2): The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work [he was still alive at the time]: The esrog is only disqualified by this blemish if the chazazis is in one area, but in several areas, it’s kosher.

 Rava: If it’s in several areas, then it’s a spotted esrog and it is surely possul. There was an error in the way the statement was reported, it must be on the second part of the mishna - that a chazazis on a small part of the esrog is kosher:

 Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work: The esrog is only kosher if the chazazis is in one area, but in several areas, it’s possul. 

 Rava: On the nose of the esrog, any minute flaw makes it possul.

The TORAS AVIGDOR 48 Hour fundraiser is now live!

Please make a generous donation at https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor

Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at *https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor*

 Summary 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): “An esrog of terumah temeiah is possul”. 

Because it is forbidden to eat. 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher. 

The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. 

According to one: Because it may become muchshar (the lulav was stored in water and would wet the esrog; setting it up for contracting tumah - see 11.4). 

According to the other: Because it is ruined (the peel becomes brown from handling). 

The difference would be in a case where he proclaimed the entire fruit - except for its peel - terumah. It would still have the problem of making the fruit muchshar, but not the issue of ruining the peel.

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher. 

According to the opinion (regarding orlah - 28.2) that it must be fit for consumption; such an esrog is fit for consumption. According to the opinion that it must be his property; such an esrog is his property. 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of Demai: Beis Shammai: It is possul. Beis Hillel: It is kosher. 

[Demai is food produced by amei ha’aretz. We generally don’t eat it because we don’t trust that they separated terumos and maasros. But actually the majority of amei ha’aretz did separate terumos and it was thus permitted for paupers to eat without separating terumos].

 Beis Hillel permits this esrog since one can become a pauper at any moment by giving away all his property, Demai is thus technically permitted for him to eat (the problem with an esrog that cannot be eaten is that it’s not considered ‘lachem’, but here since he has the potential to eat it, it is permissible).

We learned this in a mishna: We feed paupers demai. We also feed soldiers demai (according to some this refers to non-jewish soldiers, if terumah needs to be separated from a food, you cannot give it away to a gentile. According to others this refers to Jewish soldiers, although they may be landowners, they’re considered paupers as long as they’re on active duty).

According to Beis Shammai, demai is not permissible for paupers, as we learned:

We feed paupers demai. We also feed soldiers demai. 

 Rav Huna: Learn it this way: Beis Shammai: Paupers and soldiers cannot be fed with demai. Beis Hillel: Paupers and soldiers are fed demai.

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

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

An esrog of orlah is possul. The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rav Asi. According to one: Because it cannot be eaten*. According to the other: Because it is not considered your property** (because it is ossur b’hana’ah).

Everyone agrees that the esrog must be suitable to eat. They only differ as to whether it must also be the owner’s property. The difference is that according to Rabbi Meir: Maaser Sheini is considered Hashem’s property which we are allowed to eat when we are in Yerushalayim. Such an esrog is not one’s property but is permissible to eat.

 Summary 

 A proof that Rabbi Asi is the one who says ‘Because it is not considered your property’.

Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.

 Response: Indeed, it is a proof.

Full Statement: Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.

 Matzah of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.

Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah according to Rabbi Meir but it is according to the Chachomim.

 Challenge: Rav Papa: Regarding dough, the possuk states “arisoseichem” - that it must belong to you. Similarly, regarding esrog the possuk states “lachem” - that it must belong to you. But where does it state that matzah must “belong to you”?

 Rabbah bar Shmuel or perhaps Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya: We know from a gezeirah shaveh, since both matzah and challah are called lechem. Just as challah must be yours and not maaser sheini, the same goes for matzah*.

 Suggestion: Perhaps a proof can be brought from the following: “Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah, according to Rabbi Meir. Chachomim: It is chayav in challah. 

 Challenge: Why is it only a possible proof?

 Resolution: It is certainly a proof regarding challah. The question is only if we can deduce that the same principle applies to esrog and matzah. Perhaps Rabbi Meir only holds this view regarding challah where the possuk emphasizes that it “must belong to you” twice.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A-4M31kqYxUmxd9md4plSm42n5c-RHul/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos explains that since the Torah states ‘lachem’, one must be able to derive benefit by eating it. Tosfos resolves a difficulty on this from masichta Shabbos.

* *Tosfos explains that this requirement only applies to the first day. This is why the gemara prefers to give a different reason for disqualifying an esrog of Asherah or ir hanidachas. 

* Tosfos explains that this cannot be given as the reason to disqualify matzah of revel since tevel is technically the property of its owner, it’s just that the kohen and levi who are owed terumah are looked at as partners.

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

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

 The gemara brought proof that “Pri eitz hadar” refers to the esrog. 

 Summary 

 (Throughout the ages, the esrog was known [26.2], but the Chachomim are finding hints in the possuk). 

 Rebbi: “Hadar” is similar to “Hadir - The flock”. Just as a flock is made up of large and small animals, healthy and maimed animals, so too, the esrog tree has all types of esrogim. Although other trees also have all types of fruit, since the esrogim stay on the tree from season to season, the large fruits are there at the same time as the small fruits.

 Rabbi Abahu: “Hadar” is similar to “Hador - He who dwells”. This refers to the esrog who dwells in his tree from year to year.

 Ben Azai: “Hadar” is similar to “Hydor - Hydro” which means water in Greek. The fruit which requires an excessive amount of water is the esrog. 

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): From an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas is possul. 

Since it must be burned, it is already considered ashes and thus not a proper shiur (25.5).

 We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of orlah is possul. 

The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rav Asi. 

According to one: Because it cannot be eaten.

According to the other: Because it is not considered your property (because it is ossur b’hana’ah). 

 Challenge: We learned in the mishna: “Terumah temeiah is possul”. This seems to follow the opinion that something is disqualified when it cannot be eaten. But terumah temeiah is still considered the owner’s property and can be used as fuel!

 Resolution: Everyone agrees that the esrog must be suitable to eat. They only differ as to whether it must also be the owner’s property.

 Question: What difference does it make?

 Response: According to Rabbi Meir: Maaser Sheini is considered Hashem’s property which we are allowed to eat when we are in Yerushalayim. Such an esrog is not one’s property but is permissible to eat.

 Avraham Guber 

In memory of those who died in the horrific Meron tragedy

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

A stolen or dried out esrog is possul. From an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas is possul. 

An esrog of orlah is possul. 

 Terumah temeiah is possul (because it is forbidden to eat). 

An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used (because it may become tamei), but if it was used, it’s kosher.

An esrog of Demai: Beis Shammai: It is possul. Beis Hillel: It is kosher.

An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim [where it may be eaten] shouldn’t be used (because it may become tamei), but if it was used, it’s kosher.

If a chazazis - a growth of tiny blisters - came on most of the esrog, or if the pitom is broken off, if it was peeled, if it was split, it was pierced and a bit is missing; it’s possul. 

If a chazazis came on a small part of the esrog, or if the ukatz is broken off, if it was pierced and nothing is missing; it’s kosher.

A black esrog is possul. 

If it’s green like a vegetable: Rabbi Meir: It is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It is possul. 

A small esrog: Rabbi Meir: It must be the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be the size of an egg.

A large esrog: Rabbi Yehuda: He must be able to hold two in one hand. Rabbi Yosi: Even if he can only hold one in both hands, it’s kosher.

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: “The beautiful fruit of a tree” - this is the esrog whose tree tastes like its fruit.

 Challenge: What about the pepper tree which also shares this quality, as we learn in a beraisa: “You will plant all [fruit] trees of food” - why does the possuk add ‘of food’, don’t all fruit trees give food? This teaches A. that even the pepper is included in the mitzvah of orlah. B. that nothing is missing from Eretz Yisroel as it states “you will lack nothing”.

 Resolution: Our possuk cannot be referring to pepper. One peppercorn is too small to “take”, and the possuk refers to it in the singular, so more cannot be taken. Therefore “a fruit whose tree tastes like it” must refer to the esrog.

In honor of Rabbi Moshe Horowitz Shlita in appreciation of all his great work at Toras Avigdor 

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

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

 Summary 

 Beraisa: What is the difference between an aravah and tzaftzafah? 

The aravah’s stem is red and its leaf is elongated and its edge is smooth.

The tzaftzafah has a white stem, its leaf is rounded and its edge is like a scythe [it has sharp teeth]. (In some cases, kosher aravos have some of these characteristics but since they have some of the kosher signs, they’re kosher).

 Challenge: Beraisa: If it has points like a scythe (the teeth look like waves), it’s kosher, but if it has teeth like a saw it’s possul. 

 Abayye: This beraisa is discussing Chilfa Gilla [which is kosher even though it has spikes].

 Abayye: We see from here that chilfa gilla may be used for the lulav. 

 Challenge: Isn’t that obvious?

 Resolution: One might have thought that it’s possul since it has an attached name (26.5).

 Question: Why indeed is it kosher?

 Response: The Torah says ‘arvei nachal’ which implies all aravos. 

 Rav Chisda: Since the churban these three things have swapped their names:

The aravah is now called chilfa, while chilfa is called aravah. So only chilfa is kosher for the lulav. 

The shofar is now called chatzotzros , while chatzotzros is called shofar. So only the chatzotzros is kosher for Rosh Hashana.

A pesorta (small table) is now called a pesora, while a pesora is called pesorta. It makes a difference with regard to buying and selling [one needs to know which he is ordering].

(The idea here is that when we had a Sanhedrin they would appoint inspectors to oversee everything in the land. They also took care to ensure that the language remained the same, because lexical changes can affect halachos and business).

 Abayye: I’ll add one as well.

 Bei kosi is now called huvlila, while huvlila is called bei kosi. It makes a difference with regard to a needle found in the beis hakosos [bei kosi in Aramaic]. (When a needle is found in the body of an animal, the animal is treif, but when it’s found in the stomach it may be kosher. If it is stuck in the wall of the stomach called the hemses - a thin wall - it is treif, but in the beis hakosos which is thick and fleshy, it is still kosher).

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

A stolen or dried out aravah is possul. 

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

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

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

 Gemara: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Response: The wording of the possuk precludes that explanation.

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

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

 Daily Tehillim

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

Text 'Join' to 833-244-6181

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Question: When did he remove the berries?

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

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

__________

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

 Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:

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

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

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

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

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

 The debate about lulav tzarich agad (10.1):

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

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

 Question: Whose opinion does this beraisa follow?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The hadas must have three leaves growing in one row. 

 Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

A stolen or dried out hadas is possul. 

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

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

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

 Gemara: 

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

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

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

 Challenge: Perhaps it means dulva? 

 Resolution: Its leaves do not cover the branch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Question: Which hadas is avos? 

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution: Shmuel was not precise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

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

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

 Spread out - means that the leaves fan out. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Summary 

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

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

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

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

 A crooked lulav similar to a scythe is possul: 

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

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

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