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.