A Case of the Talmudic Blackberries

Points to Ponder for Tonight's shiur:

After the end of the last mini-sugyah (the two dots after the "hazmana b'almah" comments), where do we stand regarding the legitimacy of R. Yirmiya's question?

Let us introduce a new distinction - between

דיחוי מעיקרא

vs.

נראה ונדחה

We had a long Rashi in the last sugyah, and I purposefully stopped mid-way through that Rashi, let's see the second half now - and remind ourselves of the context:

 ונפשוט מינה פלגא, דאיבעיא לן יש דחוי אצל מצות או אין דחוי - נפשוט מהכא דדחוי מעיקרא לא אמרינן בה דהוי דחוי, ולא הוי דחוי אלא אם כן נראה ביום טוב ואחר כך נדחה, כל שנדחה קודם יום טוב קרי דחוי מעיקרא.

What is the difference between these two different concepts ?

Which of the two types of dichui does the Gemara believe it established was NOT considered dichui?

What does Rashi mean when he says  ולא הוי דחוי אלא אם כן נראה ביום טוב ואחר כך נדחה ?

Is he actually disqualifying something that was dichui מעיקרא? Explain

The new sugyah:

ואין ממעטין ביום טוב. הא עבר ולקטן מאי - כשר, דאשחור אימת? אילימא דאשחור מאתמול - דחוי מעיקרא הוא, תפשוט מינה דחוי מעיקרא דלא הוי דחוי! אלא לאו - דאשחור ביום טוב, נראה ונדחה הוא, שמעת מינה נראה ונדחה חוזר ונראה! - לא, לעולם דאשחור מעיקרא, דחוי מעיקרא דלא הוי דחוי - תפשוט מינה, אבל נראה ונדחה חוזר ונראה - לא תפשוט.

This sugyah continues to analyze our mishna –

• What din in the mishna is the Gemara going to be dealing with?
• What inference/  does the Gemara make on the din of the mishna? What do you think is the basis of this inference?
• See the following commentary of the Aruch L’ner (Bar Ilan Responsa Project)

ערוך לנר מסכת סוכה דף לג עמוד ב

בגמרא הא עבר ולקטן מאי כשר. ק"ק מנ"ל למידק כן?

אי משום דלא קתני "ואם מעטן פסול" כמו דקתני ברישא "ואם מיעטן כשר" הא כמו כן יש למידק ג"כ אפכא מדלא קתני הך "ואם מיעטן כשר" אחר "ואין ממעטין בי"ט".... משמע דדוקא מיעטן בחול כשר אבל מיעטן בי"ט פסול !

וי"ל דדייק כן מהא ד"אין ממעטין בי"ט" גופא כיון דהטעם הוא משום מתקן א"כ אי ס"ד דמיעטן בי"ט פסול משום דיחוי הרי ליכא תקון במה שממעט ולמה אין ממעטין בי"ט ?

אע"כ דגם מיעטן בי"ט כשר ולכן א"ש ג"כ הא דהקדים אם מיעטן כשר קודם "ואין ממעטין בי"ט"-- דהא "אם מיעטן - אינו כשר" אפי' מיעט בחול שפיר הי' מותר למעט בי"ט:

·        What new question does this bring up?

·        The Gemara then asks when the berries became black (remind yourself how we know that they have to be black in order to be a problem)

·        What is possibility #1 – when did the berries become black? Does the Gemara accept or reject this pshat and why?

·        What is possibility #2 – when did the berries become black? Does the Gemara accept or reject this pshat and why?

·        What is possibility #3 – and why does the Gemara settle for it?

Sunday Night, May 30th Chazara - TWO SLOTS STILL OPEN!

To date, the following Talmidim have signed up for tonight's Chazara (Pacific/Central/Eastern)

• Frank Stechel  6/8/9
• Ya'akov Grimaldi 6:20/8:20/9:20
• Gabe Fogel 6:40/8:40/9:40
• Dov Ber Polisky 7/9/10

Slots still open:

7:20/9:20/10:20
7:40/9:40/10:40

Please email me to reserve  your slot now - RM

Binding the Sugyah Together

I Introduction

Thanks to each and every talmid who joined us last night to help us re-connect to this fascinating sugyah. How appropriate that the sugyah, a central theme of which is Lulav needing an "eged" can be best understood when we "bind the sugyah together"....

II Looking at the Sugyahs as One Unit

As mentioned in last night's shiur, to appreciate what the Gemara is doing, we should remind ourselves of the flow of the Gemara on 33a - where the Gemara proposed that the mishna of "kisui hadam" establishes for certain that "eyn dichui b'mitzvot".  After all, why would there be an obligation to cover the blood again if the mitzvah had, at one point, become temporarily unavailable/nidcheh when the wind initially covered the blood?   There, the Gemara answered that Rav Yirmiya was not convinced by R. Pappa's conclusion.  Rather, the Gemara noted, the tanna of the mishna could have been mandating the recovering of the blood based on "safek"/doubt.  The halacha in the mishna of kisui hadam could therefore have been a product of

a) a certainty that the halacha is "eyn dichui l'mitzvot"

b) an uncertainty; maybe the halacha is "eyn" but maybe it's "yesh".  Since a doubt in an area of Torah law requires us to be stringent, the tanna may have obligated the covering of the blood based on the possibility that "eyn dichui"

The ramifications of a) vs. b) re: niktam rosho are profound.

according to a) the hadas repaired by the berry is kosher again

according to b) the hadas may not be kosher - because doubt in a Torah law requires us to be stringent, and concern ourselves with the view "yesh dichui".

III Drawing the Parallel

Our Gemara on 33b is parallel to that:

The Gemara, after concluding that the over-berried hadas was bound, and then de-berried, notes that our tanna holds that dichui from the outset ("dichui me'ikara") is not dichui.  Therefore, "im m'iatan-kasher" if the berries were reduced - it's kosher.

This presents a kashya on R. Yirmiyah - he should have learned this from our mishna, and never asked his question, says the Gemara.

Just as on 33a, where we had to explain why R. Yirmiya, knowing the mishna in kisui hadam, nevertheless asked his question of yesh/eyn dichui, so too on 33b, we have to explain how R. Yirmiya asked his question despite OUR mishna!

The Gemara's answer:

R. Yirmiya's view: The Tanna could have held "eged is mere designation/preparation/hazmana and hazmana is nothing at all"

What does the Gemara mean by this answer?

IV Dov Ber's Suggestion

The Gemara on 33a - in discussing the status of "eged" made the following conclusion:

a) R. Yehuda holds that Lulav needs an eged - and with no eged, the mitzvah cannot be done.  The lulav/3 species are simply not kosher for the fulfillment of the mitzvah

b) Tanna Kamma/Rabanan hold that - although an unbound lulav is certainly kosher - there is a fulfillment of the value of "zeh keyli v'anveyhu" - "This is my G-d and I will beautify him".  This is a principle that transcends particular mitzvot - applying equally to ALL mitzvot.  Non-enhancement of a mitzvah does not invalidate it.

So, said Dov Ber towards the end of last night's shiur, we can make the following equation

Lulav needs an eged (view of R. Yehuda) = Assumption of our Gemara in its Kashya on R. Yirmiya.  

Since Eged defines the mitzvah - it's essential to the mitzvah's performance - it follows that once the lulav is bound, we NOW HAVE A CANDIDATE FOR A HALACHIC LULAV.  And when our over-berried hadas vies for consideration as a halachic lulav, it is initially 'nidche' - pushed off.  If, when the berries are removed, it becomes kosher, as the mishna says, it must be that "dichui me'ikara" is not dichui.

Lulav does not need an eged - it's a mere "hidur" of the mitzvah = Gemara's answer: The Tanna holds that Eged is a mere "hazmana b'almah"

V My Issue With Dov Ber's Pshat

My teachers taught me to always go back and 'plug in' a theory to the words of the Gemara.

Here is where, I think, the above pshat does not succeed: If the Gemara had indeed intended in its "hava amina" to assume that Lulav needs an eged, and its "terutz"/answer to mean that lulav does not need an eged, why didn't the Gemara use those very terms? After all, the Gemara had used on 33a the term "Zeh keli ..." - Why, at least, did the Gemara not say this in our sugyah: Our Tanna holds like Tanna Kamma of the Beraita on 33a, that eged is an enhancement of the mitzvah, not crucial to the kashrut of the mitzvah?

VI Conclusion

Therefore....

Our Gemara seems to be working, both in the Kashya and Terutz - difficulty and resolution - with the assumption of Lulav needing eged.  The "chidush" of the mishna is that EVEN WITHIN THE CAMP THAT LULAV NEEDS AN EGED, ONLY THE ONSET OF THE CHAG PERMITS THE LABELING OF THE 3 SPECIES AS MITZVAH OBJECTS.  ONLY THEN DO WE ENCOUNTER THE CONCEPT OF DICHUI.  One could therefore easily say that the Tanna of our mishna holds that "Dichui Me'ikara" IS DICHUI ! It is this possible reading of the mishna that R. Yirmiya was aware of when he asked his question..........

The Latest - Surprise קושיא on R. Yirmiya

During last night's shiur, it became clear that the Gemara's analysis of the din of אם מיעטן - כשר - is ultimately a קושיא on R. Yirmiya!


To briefly review:
Ostensibly, the Gemara was analyzing the context of the din in the mishna which stated that reducing the over-berried hadas makes that hadas kosher.


The Gemara proceeds to analyze the context: It rejects the option of having reduced the berries before the hadas was bound, since there would be no "chidush" in such a statement; it's פשיטא
It therefore concludes that the berry-reduction procedure must have been done after it was bound.  This leads the Gemara to two conclusions: One implicit and one explicit.  
The implicit conclusion - as explained by Rashi - is that the Tanna does not have a problem at all of תעשה ולא מן העשוי.  Why? We do not learn Lulav from Succah.  Why, we asked, did Rashi choose to explain our Tanna this way? He could also have more easily said that our Tanna does not believe that Lulav needs an Eged.  This would have made it impossible to have a din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי - since there is no 'binding' required?!  We answered that it must be, that Rashi, for some reason, believes that our Tanna holds Lulav צריך אגד.  Therefore, he can only avert the תעשה problem by explaining that we do not learn lulav from Succah....


The explicit conclusion - that דיחוי מעיקרא is not dichui.
In other words, even though, once it became a candidate for a "halachic hadas" - ie after it was bound - it was invalid (too many berries) this hadas, once it has its berries removed, is kosher.  It must be then, that a state of psul does not make it eternally pasul!  It must be that a dichui state is reversible!


This conclusion is the fuel for the new קושיא on R. Yirmiya:
If an Amora is responsible for all the mishnayot, then why did he not see an answer to his "niktam rosho" question in our very own mishna?  Just as the Gemara asked on 33a: why did he ask his question in the first place, after all there is a mishna of כיסוי הדם, so, too, we ask the same kind of question here: why did he ask his question in the first place, after all there is a mishna of אם מיעטן כשר?


The answer is going to have to be, that despite his knowledge of our mishna, he still asked his question: Our mishna apparently does not teach that אין דחוי במצוות
Our issue for tonight is: how to read our mishna so that it DOESN'T necessarily teach this principle, thereby justifying R. Yirmiya's question.... 

Deberrying the Hadas - Revisited

On Sunday evening, we reviewed the sugyahs we covered to date, and began with the first new sugyah on לג:The Gemara is dealing with the din in the mishna that says if one removed the extra berries from the Hadas, it is kosher.  It asks the question, אימת - when were the berries removed?


Possibility #1: Prior to binding the hadas into the lulav packet. 
Rejection: This cannot be the meaning of the mishna, since there would be no "chidush" in such a din.  Why? Neither psul that we have raised so far is applicable: there is no problem of תעשה ולא מן העשוי since, in such a situation, the hadas would have been bound after the berries were removed; moreover, there is no problem of דיחוי - even if one were to theoretically entertain the possibility of יש דיחוי למצוות - since it was not yet given the halachic label of (part of the) lulav while overberried.  Therefore, we would not be able to say that it was נדחה as a mitzvah hadas at any point in time.



Possibility #2: It must be after the hadas was bound into the lulav packet


What "chidush" is being conveyed by the mishna if this is true?
Rashi:

אלא בתר דאגדיה - ואשמעינן האי תנא דלולב מסוכה לא ילפינן למיפסליה משום מן העשוי בפסול

Rather, the Tanna is teaching us that we do not learn lulav from Succah – to invalidate it based on the problem of  ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui...

We noted at the end of the shiur that in order for the Tanna to be teaching us this, the Gemara is working with the premise that lulav DOES need an eged.  Why? We explained in our previous sugyah that an analysis of ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui re: hadas, lulav, etc, first has to propose a concept of "eged" - of a component that could be potentially labeled as a "ma'aseh" - to be subject to the psul of ta'aseh; if there was no physical action involved in preparing the mitzvah, the invalidation of the mitzvah item based on ta'seh does not even start!

At the end of the shiur, I encouraged you to analyze the rest of that Rashi.  What other principle does the Tanna seem to be teaching us?


Continue with that Rashi, (Sunday's post) - and return to the Gemara to see the conclusion spelled out explicitly by the Gemara.

Q: Does these two conclusions make us Talmudically "happy" or "sad"? Why?

Where We Stand - and a Look Ahead at Tonight's Shiur

Summary of Where We Stand to date:

1) A hadas the tip of which is snipped off/removed can repair itself if a berry grows in its place (Ula)

2) R. Yirmiya raised the question of whether or not this still applies when - going into Yom Tov - the Hadas was still "headless", the berry growing only after Yom Tov begins.  The legal issue underlying his question is whether there is or is not דיחוי אצל מצוות.  Briefly reviewed: if we say "yesh dichui", then we rule that if a mitzvah object/opportunity became invalid/inapplicable at some point in time, it remains forever 'pushed off' and invalid/inapplicable.  If we say "eyn dichui" - then a temporary setback can be followed by a renewed validation/applicability of the mitzvah.  Applied to Hadas, despite the fact that the berry only grew in after YT began, and the hadas was "nidche"/invalid for a period of time, if we hold "eyn dichui", the regrowing of the berry makes the hadas kosher once again.  If we held "yesh dichui", the hadas remains forever pasul/invalid.

3) The Gemara was initially troubled by R. Yirimiya's question: Why could he not have solved his problem via the mishna in Chulin, dealing with כיסוי הדם - covering the blood of a bird/wild animal? Doesn't the exchange surrounding that mishna establish that "eyn dichui" - the mitzvah of covering the blood applies again once the wind blows off; this seems to lead to the conclusion that "eyn dichui" - and would make the hadas in question kosher once again - after the berry sprouts.

4) Gemara explains that R. Yirmiya still had his question because he was not convinced that R. Pappa's inference was correct.  Rather, the Tanna in Chulin could easily have been in doubt as to the principle; the doubt would reflect itself in a concern that the mitzvah of covering the blood may still be applicable once the wind blew off - and yet the doubt would not allow us to make the hadas kosher.  We still would have to worry that the law may be "yesh dichui" and the "repaired" hadas is not repaired at all!

5) Maybe this issue is a machloket between the Tannaim? The Gemara cites a baraita of R. Elazar and Chachamim and initially tries to establish that their machloket is yesh/eyn dichui.  RE holds yesh and Tanna Kamma holds eyn.  This is deflecting by the Gemara in two ways - we will not review the details now - see the earlier blog entries for details.

6) The Gemara concludes, after a short give-and-take, that the psul called "berries more than leaves" applies
even when the berries are distributed in two or three places on the hadas - but that such a psul only exists when the berries are either black or red.  This makes the hadas look "minumar"/ spotted and invalidates it. If the berries were green, they are halachically considered part of the species of hadas and the hadas is thus kosher.

Below is tonight's sugyah.  The sugyah begins with the statement in our mishna, that if one reduced the number of berries on the hadas, the hadas is kosher.  Thought questions:

• What does the word אימת mean? (do you recall the opening words of the first mishna in Berachot? Compare)
• The Gemara begins to answer this question with the term אילימא - what does this term mean (ie what does it normally introduce) - and what ALWAYS occurs in response to an אילימא?
• The Gemara responds to this suggestion by saying פשיטא - what does this term mean and why is the first possibility so "פשיטא"?
• The next option is introduced by the term אלא - what does this term always mean?
• Does the Gemara accept or reject this option?

סוכה דף לג עמוד ב

אם מיעטן כשר. דמעטינהו אימת? אילימא מקמיה דלאגדיה - פשיטא! אלא לבתר דלאגדיה - דחוי מעיקרא הוא! תפשוט מינה דחוי מעיקרא לא הוי דחוי! - לעולם בתר דאגדיה, וקסבר: אגד הזמנה בעלמא הוא, והזמנה בעלמא לאו כלום הוא.

Rashi

פשיטא - אמאי נפסליה לא מן העשוי יש כאן - שהרי נאגד בהכשר, ולא משום דחוי יש כאן - שהרי לא קרא שם מצוה עליה בדחוי.

אלא בתר דאגדיה - ואשמעינן האי תנא דלולב מסוכה לא ילפינן למיפסליה משום מן העשוי בפסול, מיהו, משום דחוי הוה לן למיפסליה, שהרי נקרא עליו שם הושענא פסולה בשעת אגידתו, ומדמכשר ליה - שמע מינה דחוי מעיקרא לאו דחוי הוא, ונפשוט מינה פלגא, דאיבעיא לן יש דחוי אצל מצות או אין דחוי - נפשוט מהכא דדחוי מעיקרא לא אמרינן בה דהוי דחוי, ולא הוי דחוי אלא אם כן נראה ביום טוב ואחר כך נדחה, כל שנדחה קודם יום טוב קרי דחוי מעיקרא.

הכי גרסינן: לעולם בתר דאגדיה וקא סבר אגד הזמנה בעלמא הוא - אין אגודתו קריאת שם להיות חל עליו שם לולב פסול לדחות, והלכך אפילו דחוי מעיקרא אין כאן עד שיקדש עליו היום ועודנו בפסולו, דכיון דמטא זמן מצוה ולא חזי ליה - מיקרי דחוי, אבל מקמי הכי - לאו דחוי הוא.

Monday Night Mini- Sugyah

Tonight's mini-sugyah:

או שהיו ענביו מרובין: אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו והמקום יהיה בעזרו לא שנו אלא במקום אחד אבל בשנים או שלשה מקומות כשר א"ל רבא שנים ושלשה מקומות הוי מנומר ופסול אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר או שהיו ענביו מרובין מעליו פסול אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו והמקום יהיה בעזרו ל"ש אלא ענביו שחורות אבל ענביו ירוקות מיני דהדס הוא וכשר אמר רב פפא אדומות כשחורות דמיין דא"ר חנינא האי דם שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה: 

Our sugyah this evening revolves around the definition of the more berries than leaves psul.  What are the parameters of this disqualification ?  What limitation does R. Chisdah place on this psul?  What is Rava's response         

Sunday Chazara Schedule - May 16th - So far!

The following slots are still open: 7 & 8, 8:20 Eastern - email me at ravronami@gmail.com for reservations

4:20 P/ 6:20 C/ 7:20 E   Gabe Fogel

4:40 P/ 6:40 C/ 7:40 E   Dov Ber Polisky

5:00 P/ 7:00 C/ 8:00     Ya'akov G.

5:40 P/7:40 C / 8:40 E    Chani Fenster

Chazara Sessions This Sunday, May 16th

I have emailed Webyeshiva's office requesting scheduling of a two hour period on Sunday for Chazara

4-6 Pacific time

6-8 Central

7-9 Eastern

I will confirm these times when I hear from Webyeshiva. Please email me to reserve your time.

Review for Thursday

Last night, we clarified the two alternatives suggested by the Gemara in explaining the machloket between R. Elazar and Chachamim.

Approach #1 - both RE and C agree that "eyn dichui" - and therefore, RE's psul of the over-berried hadas cannot be based on "yesh dichui". What, then, is the basis of RE's psul? A: He holds that we learn lulav from Succah.

Rashi breaks this down into two steps:

1) RE holds that Lulav does need an egged - and therefore, it is relevant to discuss the concept of "constructing" the bundle.
2) We learn Lulav from Succah in the form of a binyan av - paradigm - just like Succah has to be made, and needs asiya (and therefore has the psul of ta'aseh) so too, Lulav, which has to be made, has the psul of ta'aseh.

Chachamim, on the other hand, agreeing that Lulav needs to be bound, nevertheless, do not learn lulav from Succah. Rather, only pesukim that themselves have the term "ta'aseh" or "asiya" in them have the psul of ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui.

Approach #2

Both RE and Chachamim hold that if Lulav needed an eged, we would learn lulav from Succah, and you would have a psul of ta'seh. However the debate is:

RE: Lulav needs an egged
Chachamim: Lulav does not need an egged. Therefore, there can be no psul of ta'aseh

The machloket between RE and Chachamim is parallel to the Machloket in another baraita between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda...R. Yehuda says that Lulav does need an egged, and TK says it doesn't.

In other words, the baraita that has just been quoted is the argument over the principle of eged and the disagreement between RE and Chachamim is the "playing out" of that machloket as it pertains to an over-berried hadas & the psul of ta'aseh. RE agrees with R. Yehuda that lulav needs an egged, and the hadas is therefore subject to the psul of ta'aseh. Chachamim agree with TK that lulav does not need an egged and the hadas is therefore not subject to the psul of ta'aseh.

Last part of the sugyah:
מאי טעמא דר' יהודה יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב כתיב הכא ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון וכתיב התם ולקחתם אגודת אזוב מה להלן אגודה אף כאן אגודה ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה מאן תנא להא דת"ר לולב מצוה לאוגדו ואם לא אגדו כשר מני אי רבי יהודה כי לא אגדו אמאי כשר אי רבנן מאי מצוה קא עביד לעולם רבנן ומצוה משום זה אלי ואנוהו

What does the Gemara want to know when it asks מאי טעמא דר' יהודה ?
Explain the limud/drasha cited by the Gemara
How does the Gemara explain the view of TK/Rabanan? Saying ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה seems to beg the question!
The sugyah concludes with the following question מאן תנא להא דת"ר etc - what is the Gemara looking for when it uses this expression?
Summarize the baraita/views now cited by the Gemara
What "catch-22" question does the Gemara ask on this baraita?
How does the Gemara, before the 2 dots, ultimately resolve this question?

Where We Stand as of Wednesday

Last night, we spent time reviewing the first suggestion of the Gemara - to view the Machloket between R. Elazar and Chachaim as a machloket on יש/אין דיחוי - and we proceeded to the Gemara's rejection of this proposal. The Gemara begins its rejection by saying that both RE and Chachamim hold אין דיחוי...

We pointed out at the time that this is fine for Chachamim, who hold that the de-berried hadas is kosher, but for R. Elazar, on what basis would the hadas be pasul if RE holds אין דיחוי?

The Gemara now proposes that the two sides are divided on the question as to whether or not we learn Lulav from Succah.

We noted that this must mean that the Gemara is re-visiting the possibility that Lulav needs an אגד. Learning Lulav from Succah means that we are considering a psul of תעשה ולא מן העשוי, since our last mention of Succah was in the framework of a mitzvah that had a component of עשיה, from the pasuk of חג הסוכות תעשה לך....Rashi, reading this between the lines, has this to say: (see italics)

Rashi:
לא דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן יש דחוי במצוה - וטעמא דמאן דפסל משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי הוא, דקסבר: לולב צריך למיגד, ושייך ביה עשיה, והכא במילף לולב מסוכה פליגי.

But now that we say this, ie that RE's psul is based on Lulav needing an egged and ta'aseh --- what is the machloket between RE and Chachamim?

Frank suggested that it is whether or not Lulav needs an egged. RE says yes, therefore a psul of ta'aseh, and Chachamim say no, therefore no such psul. But we ended the shiur by showing that if that is what the Gemara was saying, it certainly didn't say it! Rather, the Gemara says that the machloket is on whether or not we learn lulav from Succah. What does this mean?

The key for tonight is the next Rashi:

ילפינן - בבנין אב, הואיל וזה בעשיה וזה בעשיה, מה זה ולא מן העשוי - אף זה ולא מן העשוי.

What is a "binyan av" and how is it applicable to this answer?

Deflecting the "Leyma Ketenai"

לא דכ"ע לא אמרינן יש דחוי אצל מצות והכא במילף לולב מסוכה קא מיפלגי מר סבר ילפינן לולב מסוכה ומר סבר לא ילפינן לולב מסוכה ואיבעית אימא אי סבירא לן לולב צריך אגד דכ"ע ילפינן לולב מסוכה והכא בלולב צריך אגד קא מיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא לולב בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר ר' יהודה אומר אגוד כשר שאינו אגוד פסול מאי טעמא דר' יהודה יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב כתיב הכא ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון וכתיב התם ולקחתם אגודת אזוב מה להלן אגודה אף כאן אגודה ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה

Above is the new piece of Gemara that we are going to be tackling tonight and tomorrow.  As we noted last week, the expression "bimy kamiflegay" is always met with a deflection.  This section begins with that deflection.  So, as well as reviewing the "leyma ketanai" of last week, see if you can decipher the deflection.  Where does it begin and end? Why does the Gemara not accept the proposal of the "leyma ketani"? The next piece begins with an "e-bayit eyma" - this is another one of those key words - what does it mean and what is it going to introduce? see you in shiur

Sunday, May 9th Chazara Schedule - One more spot open!

Time	Student
5:35 Pacific, 7:35 Central, 8:35 Eastern	Dov Ber Polisky
6 pm Pacific, 8 Central, 9 Eastern	Frank Stechel
6:20 Pacific, 8:20 Central, 9:20 Eastern	Ya'akov G.
6:40 Pacific, 8:40 Central, 9:40 Eastern	Gabe Fogel
7 pm Pacific, 9 Central, 10 Eastern	Chani Fenster
7:20 Pacific, 9:20 Central, 10:20 Eastern	Vacancy

Leyma K'tanai - continued

Last night:

We discussed the expression מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי - and noted that it always introduces a proposed explanation of a machloket between the Tannaim.  It is phrased in the form of a rhetorical question - and its intent is:

"Surely, this principle is at the root of their disagreement."   The principle in question will be the principle appearing immediately before this unit in the Gemara.  In our sugyah, the principle in question in the Gemara is יש דיחוי למצוות או איו דיחוי למצוות.  The Gemara wants to suggest that the machloket between R. Elazar and Chachamim is over this principle: R. Elazar hold יש דיחוי and therefore invalidates the hadas, whereas Chachamim say אין דיחוי and therefore says that the Hadas is kosher.  Note, as we did last night, that the Gemara is not connecting the transgression of removing the berries on Yom Tov to the eventual status of the Hadas as pasul.  This makes sense, since the removal of the berries is a mere rabbinic prohibition and the issue at stake is the kashrut - mid'oraita (from the Torah) of the hadas.

From my experience, the Gemara will always ultimately reject the explanation proposed in a מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי format.  This is what happens in our Gemara.

We then went back to the unit we colored in - in green - and explained:

סברוה - meant the view of the rabbis of the Beit Midrash.  Which rabbis? Rashi: The ones who wish to propose (soon) that the machloket is based on אין.יש דיחי ...........

What did they propose?

דכו"ע - that everyone - "kulay almah" - ie both views in the baraita - hold that Lulav does not need to be bound...

Of what relevance is that here?

Rashi explains: If a Lulav would need to be bound, then there is an act of עשיה - making - the Lulav bundle.  The mitzvah of Lulav would then be subject to the principle of תעשה- ולא מן העשוי.  This principle states that regarding mitzvot that have a mitzvah of "making" - like Succah, Tzizit etc - you must "make" the mitzvah in a certain order, and not have the mitzvah result from an "after the fact" action. The example we gave was of cutting a fourth corner to a garment after the four sets of tzizit had been affixed. Such tzizit would be pasul and would have to be re-tied on the newly-formed four cornered garment.  Therefore, here, if there was a mitzvah of עשיה, one could propose that R. Elazar's psak of "pasul" stemmed (pardon the pun!) from the removal of the berries AFTER the hadas was bound with the other species.

The Gemara is saying that there is no mitzvah of eged by a lulav, and therefore this cannot be the basis of R. Elazar's din of "pasul".

This makes way for an explanation of יש דיחוי למצות to explain R. Elazar....

Leyma Ketanai

After reviewing the R. Pappa/R. Yirmiya, we moved on last night to Leyma Ketanai - and had a lively discussion of this concept.  Our operative understanding so far is that it means that the question R. Yirmiya is asking about is ultimately dealt with in a baraita.  The baraita that the Gemara chooses is a follow-up of one of the cases of the mishna: the hadas that is overwhelmed by extra berries.  Although removing the berries is effective in making the hadas kosher, we learned in the mishna that one should not do this on Yom Tov.

The baraita states that if a person "avar v'liktan" - ie transgressed and gathered the berries from the hadas, ie picked them off - then the Hadas is Pasul (R. Elazar B'r Zadok) or Kosher (Chachamim)

Rashi explains that the violation entailed in removing the berries on Yom Tov is that the action is similar to making a vessel - and it's a rabbinic prohibition on Shabbos.  But we asked the question why the rabbinic issur, even if violated, should lead to a pasul hadas according to R. Elazar? Surely, from the Torah, we have here a kosher hadas!!!

This actually may be answered by the approach of the Gemara at the next stage - the Gemara does not argue that the hadas is pasul for R. Elazar because of the violation of a rabbinic prohibition, but rather because of R. Elazar's position of "yesh dichui" - it came into Yom Tov pasul, and is therefore disqualified - whereas Chachamim hold "eyn dichui".

According to this explanation, there is no necessary connection between the aveira committed and the law of pasul - because the aveira is based on a rabbinic prohibition, whereas the psul is, according to R. Elazar - a Torah blemish....

See you in shiur!

What was really bothering R. Yirmiya

It has been revealed:

R. Yirmiya certainly understood R. Pappa's inference: that the din in the Seifa of the mishna in Chulin flows from a certainty that "eyn dichui"; this leads to an obligation to cover the blood once it becomes uncovered again - and would lead to the conclusion that a hadas that was "niktam rosho" on Erev Chag could certainly recover from that status and become kosher once again!  As we put it yesterday, if the din is "eyn dichui" - THEN LET THE HALACHIC CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY - if this leads to a CHUMRAH or stringency like an obligation to cover the blood, fine - and if leads to a KULAH - leniency - like a kosher hadas, that's fine too...

However, R. Yirimiya was uncertain as to whether or not R. Pappa made the proper inference.  After all, the din in the mishna in Chulin could also flow from a desire to be strict on the part of the Tanna.  The tanna in Chulin could have been in a "safek" (doubt) as to what the principle is (yesh/eyn) and because we are dealing with a potential Torah obligation to cover the blood of a bird or undomesticated animal, he was stringent, with the following reasoning in mind: if the din is eyn dichui, then I'm chayav to cover the blood, so that's what should be done; if the din is yesh dichui, then nothing is lost by covering the blood again!

If this is what motivated the Tanna, it would lead to a safek in the hadas case, too.  Here's how it would play itself out: if the principle is eyn dichui, then the hadas is kosher; but if the rule is yesh dichui, then the hadas is pasul/invalid!!!  Because we're dealing with the Torah obligation of shaking a lulav on the first day, we would end up invalidating such a hadas on the first day - once again, because of a Safek in a Torah law leads one to be stringent.....

The trick is practicing reading this logic back into the Gemara, which we will do tonight.

Thought Question for Tonight:

What does "leyma kitanai" mean - and how does the tannaitc source cited next by the Gemara seem to reflect this "leyma kitanai"??

Monday, Week 2 of the Headless Hadas/Niktam Rosho Succah 33a

In our last shiur, on Thursday evening, we delved deeper into the question being asked by the Gemara and began to analyze the answer.

A quick review:

The Gemara has raised a kushya on R. Yirmiya: What prompted him to wonder about the status of a hadas that was "niktam" and then grew back a berry once Yom Tov entered? After all, a mishna in Chulin (after being elucidated by Raba Bar Bar Chana and R. Pappa) establishes "eyn dichui etzel mitzvot" - and therefore, the hadas - even though it entered Yom Tov in a state of "psul" - nevertheless would become kosher once the berry grows back.  In other words, a mitzvah object can recover from being temporarily invalidated for a mitzvah.

In the case of the mishna in Chulin, we are not exactly dealing with a "mitzvah object" but rather with a situation in which the mitzvah is either available or unavailable to you.

Reisha of that mishna: If you covered the blood (of a chaya or of) and it later became uncovered, you are exempt from recovering it.

Seifa of that mishna: If the wind initially covered the blood, you are obligated to cover it.

Now, we noted (especially with those talmidim who engaged in the Chazara on Sunday) that the seifa of the mishna must be explained more fully.  How could you be obligated to cover the blood once it's covered???

Possibility #1:
You are required to place another layer on top of the dirt.
I explained to several students yesterday that, in my view, this cannot be the pshat.  Why? Since the blood is already covered, your adding a layer on would not be deemed to be "covering" it.  This can perhaps be compared to a Sofer who has written the name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah without having the intention of being "mekadesh" that name.  It wouldn't help for the Sofer to write another layer on top of the first one.  It's redundant - and does not constitute a "re-writing" of the name!

Possibility #2:

You are required to uncover the dirt that blew on SO THAT YOU CAN RE-COVER IT.

As I explained to those during the Chazara session, this is a defensible reading of the text.  Perhaps you have to be proactive, and create the framework within which you can now fulfill the mitzvah?!

As you can see from the Gemara, the authoritative understanding of this mishna, as elucidated by Raba Bar Bar Chana is not in line with #2, but is......

Possibility #3

You are only required to recover the blood in the event that it becomes uncovered on its own.  You can see from Raba Bar Bar Chana's "lo shanu elah"etc that this is what he is saying.

The Gemara in Chulin, quoted by our Gemara ("V'havinan ba")  then asked a rhetorical question on the Seifa: why would there be an obligation to cover the blood if it became uncovered - "Ho'il V'idchei idchei" - once it has become covered, and the mitzvah opportunity has disappeared, there should seemingly be no requirement to perform the mitzvah!

The Gemara in Chulin, ie Rav Pappa there: "This means that there is no dichui in mitzvot" So, coming full circle, to review: Why was R. Yirmiya in doubt? Does the mishna in Chulin (with commentary) not establish "eyn dichui"?

OUR Gemara's answer:

R. Yirmiya was unsure of Rav Pappa's diyuk/inference - WAS RAV PAPPA MAKING THE PROPER INFERENCE IN CHULIN?

Where we ended off:  Was the TANNA sure of the principle of "eyn dichui" - or perhaps......

Thought Question:

Before tonight's shiur, see if you can make your way thru the next couple of lines of the Gemara - and ask yourself: how could the Tanna in Chulin's psak still be understood WITHOUT HIM SUBSCRIBING DEFINITIVELY TO EYN DICHUI? 

In your efforts to understand the Gemara, please ask yourselves: when would eyn dichui create a Chumrah (stringency) and when would it create a Kulah (leniency)?