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..........