SUNDAY CHAZARA SCHEDULE

Experimenting with templates...........

Please email me at ravronami@gmail.com to reserve your Sunday night spot.  Tentative schedule will be posted Motza'ey Shabbat!

Wednesday Shiur Summary

Last night we fleshed out the discussion of the mishna in Chulin.  As a quick review

a) If you covered blood of a bird or חיה -- and it then became exposed, you are exempt from covering it again
b) If however, it was initially covered by the wind, you are obligated to cover it.

Raba Bar Bar Chana qualifies the SEIFA of this mishna: he says that the obligation to cover the blood is only if the wind blew the dirt off the blood.  If however, it remained covered (due to the initial wind) the mishna exempts you from covering it.

What is the Gemara's point by citing this mishna + commentary?

To question R. Yirmiya's question of יש או אין דיחוי אצל מצוות

How does this mishna serve as a kashya on R. Yirmiya?

Says the Gemara: Why in the Seifa, does the uncovering of the blood generate an obligation to re-cover that blood???? After all, once it was אידחי - exempt from covering (by virtue of the fact that it was covered by the wind) it should be אידחי forever!!  (in other words, this seems to be a case where dichui should play itself out - and you should have no obligation to cover it once it was exposed!)

R. Pappa explains: This mishna proves that there is no dichui in the world of mitzvot.  If there was dichui, then you would be exempt from re-covering the blood even when the wind blew the dirt off!!!

IF SO, WE SEE FROM THIS MISHNA THAT THERE IS NO DICHUI - AND R. YIRMIYA SHOULD NOT HAVE ASKED HIS QUESTION; RATHER, HE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD ON HIS OWN THAT THE HADAS WITH THE SNIPPED OFF HEAD AND THE REPLACEMENT BERRY IS KOSHER, BECAUSE MITZVOT CAN BECOME RELEVANT AGAIN, EVEN AFTER BEING "NIDCHE"..

Summary of first shiur in Masechet Sukkah

a) Amongst other הלכות, our mishna on 32b states that a Hadas which is נקטם ראשו is invalid for performance of the mitzvah on Succot.

b) The Gemara, at the top of 33a, brings a baraita, quoted by עולא בר חיננא that if a תמרה - a berry-like fruit the shape of a date - grows in the place of the blemish, the Hadas is once again valid for use.  We noted that had Ula not cited this baraita, we may have deduced that the problem of נקטם ראשו is irreversible.

c) R. Yirmiya, an Amora, raises the following question: What if the Hadas became נקטם prior to Yom Tov, and then the תמרה grew on Yom Tov.  The answer to the question hinges on a larger conceptual issue of whether we say יש דחוי אצל מצוות or not.  What this principle precisely means - see the most recent posting on this blog for a detailed explanation.  R. Yirmiya is attempting to define the parameters of the halacha quoted by Ula.  Does the baraita rule that the growth of such a fruit on the top unconditionally solves the problem of נקטם ראשו - or does the baraita hold that as long as the "repair" occurred prior to the onset of the Yom Tov - when a myrtle branch becomes a 'halachic hadas', then it's kosher....but if, when Succot entered, it was נקטם, the hadas cannot be "repaired"?

d) The Gemara seems puzzled by R. Yirmiya's question.  The phrase ותפשוט ליה מה דתנן... indicates that the answer to R. Yirmiya's question already appears in a mishna.  If so, R. Yirmiya, as an Amora, who is responsible for knowing all of the mishnayot, should have avoided asking the question....

יש או אין דחוי אצל מצוות – from dafyomi.co.il

(a) "Dichuy" means "pushed off". This Halachic concept applies to certain cases in which a specific object is necessary for the fulfillment of a Mitzvah. If at one point that item is unfit for use as required, then Dichuy says that it may no longer be used even if it should then become fit. If, for example, one sanctifies an animal that has a Mum (blemish), Dichuy would not allow that animal to be offered upon the Mizbe'ach even after it has healed. 

(b) There are two different scenarios in which Dichuy may apply. One, as in the previous example, is where the Dichuy was in existence from the beginning of the object's suitability for the Mitzvah. This is termed "Dichuy me'Ikara". If, however, the animal developed the Mum only after it was sanctified, this would be a question of "Nir'eh v'Nidcheh". This term refers to a situation in which the item was at first fit for use, end only afterward became unfit. Nir'eh v'Nidcheh is a more serious condition, as the object was actively deferred from the Mitzvah. 

(c) In our Gemara, Rebbi Yirmeyahu raises the question of whether or not the concept of Dichuy applies to all Mitzvos, or only to specific Mitzvos in which we know Dichuy to apply. The application of Dichuy to our Sugya is with regard to a Hadas that was unfit for use in the Arba Minim at the onset of the Mitzvah of Arba Minim due to that which its tip was cut off. If a Temarah then developed afterward, is the Hadas valid, or is invalid due to Dichuy? 

כיסוי הדם

(a) It is a Mitzvah to cover the blood of slaughtered birds and Chayos (non-domesticated Kosher animals) (Vayikra 17:13). The blood must be surrounded from above and below with earth or any other granular substance. 

Tuesday Time Change

As you know, we are starting to learn this coming Sunday, April 25th at 6 pm Pacific, 8 Central, 9 Eastern time....

I want to apologize in advance for the fact that Class #3, this Tuesday evening, I am rescheduling the class for one hour earlier due to a one time speech I have to give here in Seattle.

I will confirm this on Sunday, but Tuesday April 27th's class will be

5 pm Pacific

7 pm Central

8 pm Eastern time

Sorry for any inconvenience this causes you!

Ron-Ami Meyers

Intro shiur Matmidim Succah 32b-33a

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף לב עמוד ב

משנה. הדס הגזול והיבש - פסול. של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת - פסול. נקטם ראשו, נפרצו עליו, או שהיו ענביו מרובות מעליו - פסול. ואם מיעטן - כשר. ואין ממעטין ביום טוב.

• What three physical problems make a hadas invalid for use on Succot, according to the mishna?
• Starting in the Gemara, on the top of לג – starting with the words

נקטם ראשו

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף לג עמוד א

נקטם ראשו. תני עולא בר חיננא: נקטם ראשו ועלתה בו תמרה - כשר. בעי רבי ירמיה: נקטם ראשו מערב יום טוב ועלתה בו תמרה ביום טוב, מהו? יש דחוי אצל מצות או לא? ותפשוט ליה מהא דתנן: כסהו ונתגלה - פטור מלכסות, כסהו הרוח - חייב לכסות.

• Although נקטם ראשו invalidates a hadas, what new situation does Ula introduce? What do you think is the logic of his ruling?

• What situation is R. Yirmiya inquiring about immediately afterward?
  Why should it make a difference when the תמרה appears?  (Hint, the legal issue in focus here is introduced by the Gemara in the next line מהו יש דחוי etc….

Shiur Starts Sunday April 25th

Welcome to WebSuccah!

Dear Talmidim,


Welcome to the blog I've just set up to accompany the Matmidim Gemara Shiur starting this Summer Zman at Webyeshiva.  The Blog will serve as a daily record of our progress through the sugyot - incorporating both content and learning tools discussed and applied in shiur.  Our learning will begin with the mishna on Succah לב: and will proceed with the first major sugyah on לג.


More to come!