Summary of Monday Shiur and Thought Question

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף ב עמוד ב

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי יאשיה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך,

R. Yoshiya/Rav: The machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only in a scenario in which the walls don’t reach the סכך – in that scenario, TK says that the succah is פסולה since a person won’t lift his eyes so high – and he will lack the awareness at the time he is sitting there, that he is in a succah commanded by Hashem

 אבל דפנות מגיעות לסכך - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.

• But when the walls reach the סכך, it’s kosher (even according to TK) if the succah is higher than 20 amot

 כמאן – כרבה, דאמר: משום דלא שלטא בה עינא, וכיון דדפנות מגיעות לסכך – משלט שלטא בה עינא.

• This statement of Rav’s is in accordance with Raba, who said that the problem of the 20 ama high succah is that one’s eyes won’t focus on  סכךthat high…once the walls reach the סכך, a person’s eyes will be aware of the (even very high) schach…

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין בה אלא ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות,.

R. Huna/Rav: The machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only in a scenario in which the succah measures only 4 x 4 amot,

אבל יש בה יותר מארבע אמות על ארבע אמות - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.

• but if there is more than 4 x 4 amot in the succah, the succah is kosher even if above 20 amot in height

כמאן - כרבי זירא, דאמר: משום צל הוא, וכיון דרויחא - איכא צל סוכה

• This statement of Rav’s is in accordance with R. Zeira, who said that the problem of the 20 ama high succah is that the walls, and not the סכך, are providing the shade.  Once the succah is roomer, then the סכך provides the shade even with a 20 ama high succah

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חנן בר רבה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאינה מחזקת אלא כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו,

Rav Chanan/Rav: The machloket between the Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda in our mishna is only if the succah only holds his head, the majority of his body and  his table

אבל מחזקת יותר מכדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו - אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.

But if it holds more than this, then it’s kosher even according to TK if it’s over 20 amot high

כמאן? דלא כחד.

Who is it according to? Not like any one of the Amoraim – and here’s why:

Not like Raba: Since, according to Raba, the problem is that a person’s eyes will not focus on the סכך, in a succah higher than 20 amot, he will not all of a sudden focus on the סכך if the succah is larger than 4 x 4!

Not like R. Zeira: Since, according to R. Zeira, the problem is that the walls and not the סכך is providing the shade, in a succah higher than 20 amot!

Not like Rava: Since, according to Rava, the problem is that such a height requires permanent walls, and the Torah insisted on a height that could support temporary walls, this problem will not be alleviated by a succah that has an area of over 4 x 4

-                                            

The Gemara then makes the following statement:

בשלמא דרבי יאשיה פליגא אדרב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה, דאינהו קא יהבי שעורא במשכא, ואיהו לא קא יהיב שעורא במשכא.

As we mentioned in our shiur on Monday evening, it is clear that there are different citations of Rav’s view at work here.  Whenever a talmid reports a view in the name of his teacher, it is possible that he will have a different understanding of the teacher’s view than another talmid.  This could be for a number of reasons….

The Gemara initially states that it is clear that Rav Yoshiya (view 1) disagrees with the rendition of Rav Huna and Rav Chanan, since their focus is that the area of the succah expanding would prompt the TK to declare the succah kosher.  According to Ritvah, it is clear that he heard a fundamentally different principle from Rav than the other Amoraim.  He didn’t hear a halacha from Rav, and then offer his own interpretation

אלא רב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה, נימא בהכשר סוכה קמיפלגי; דמר סבר: הכשר סוכה בארבע אמות, ומר סבר: הכשר סוכה במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו?

However, Rav Huna and Rav Chanan (according to Ritvah):It’s possible that they don’t fundamentally disagree as to what their Rebbe said, because they both actually heard Rav say that the disagreement between TK and RY in our mishna takes place when the succah does not have its minimal shiur and they went on subsequently to apply their own specific views as to what the minimal shiur of a succah is Rav Huna: 4 x 4; R. Chanan, head, most of body, table…

I tried to suggest why this step in the Gemara is considered a  קושיא- why this part of the Gemara is phrased as a בשלמא and אלא…

My suggestion the other night was that the Gemara had a hard time believing that these Amoraim would make a statement without attributing their approaches back to the Tanna whom they were quoting… After seeing the Ritvah, however, I would like to suggest the following: What was bothering the Gemara was that R. Huna would be ruling like the lone view of Rebbe, while R. Chanan rules like Rabanan (the majority view).  The Gemara is not pleased with an approach which has R. Huna agreeing with a minority view…

This propels the Gemara to conclude:

- לא, דכולי עלמא הכשר סוכה ראשו ורובו ושולחנו. והכא בהא קמיפלגי; דמר סבר: במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו פליגי, אבל יותר מראשו ורובו ושולחנו - דברי הכל כשרה. ומר סבר: מראשו ורובו ושולחנו עד ארבע אמות פליגי, אבל יותר מארבע אמות - דברי הכל כשרה.

According to Ritvah: Both Rav Huna and R. Chanan rule like Rabanan (the majority view) that the minimum measurement of a succah is head, most of body etc, and they are each claiming that they heard EXACTLY THAT MEASUREMENT from Rav…not, as we said earlier, that they heard “minimal measurement of Succah” from Rav, and then offered their own interpretation.

In shiur, we can discuss the question: What was gained by the Gemara in approaching the machloket between R. Hunan and Rav Chanan this way?

Reserve Chazara spots now

Gabe Fogel 6 pm Pacific

Thursday shiur review

Review of Thursday’s shiur:

R. Zeira and Rava do not agree with Rava – why? They understand the the ידיעה referred to in the pasuk refers to the lesson that later generations will learn that Hashem protected Am Yisrael with the ענני הכבוד – not (as Raba understands it) as referring to the knowledge that we are sitting in a Succah that Hashem commanded……

Raba and Rava do not agree with R. Zeira – why? The reference to the shade of the Succah is a reference to the Divine Protection that will be provided Am Yisrael in the times of the Mashiach. R. Zeira responds: If that was the ONLY intention of the pasuk in the Navi, the term “Chuppah” would have been used. The use of the term “Succah” conveys both the prophecy PLUS the halachic information that the shade must be provided by the סכך

R. Zeira and Raba do not agree with Rava – for the same reason Abaye objected to Rava’s approach.

The Gemara then goes on to successive quotes of Rav – asking: “according to which of the three approaches on 2a do these statements align?

R. Yoshiya/Rav - The machloket between TK and RY in the mishna is only when the walls don’t reach the schach, because then the human eye does not follow the walls up to the schach, but if the walls reach the schach, even TK agrees with RY.  This goes according to Raba, whose whole concern with the 20 ama high limit is the lack of awareness that one is sitting in a Succah that Hashem commanded.

R. Huna/Rav – the Machloket is when the succah is less than 4 amot x 4 amot, but more than that, even TK agrees with RY.  This goes according to R. Zeira, who says that the concern is that the schach doesn’t provide the shade.  But if it’s a larger succah than 4 x 4, even 20 ama high succahs will have their schach provide the shade.

R. Chanan/Rav – the machloket is only where the succah does not contain his head, the majority of his body and his table, but if it holds more, then even TK says it is kosher…We will review in shiur why this must be so….

Thursday Night Shiur

Last night's class focused on the view of Rava as to why a Succah that is higher than twenty amot is not valid as a Succah.

Rava quotes the verse that says, בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים - "You should dwell in Sukkot for Seven Days". Rava understands that the intention of the Torah is that you should dwell is "Seven Day" Sukkot.  In other words, make for yourselves Sukkot that will last for seven days.   "Leave your permanent homes and enter into temporary dwellings".  A succah higher than 20 amot requires walls that are permanent, stronger foundations, etc...

Abaye's קושיא on Rava is: If that's the case אלא מעתה - (ie from here, based on your logic) it follows: that if a person places schach on iron walls, it would not be a kosher succah.....(Implicit in Abaye's comments is that it is clear that such a succah is kosher.  How, then, could Rava give us a drasha that implies that such a succah would not be valid?

Rava answers: (according to Rashi's explanation) included in a permanent succah is the minimal standard of a temporary succah. The intent of the Torah was not to invalidate a permanent succah, but to set the parameters for the upper height of a succah.  It has to be a height that would tolerate temporary walls and limited foundations.  Therefore, even if the walls were made of iron, such a succah would be kosher, as long as it the succah was a height that would tolerate temporary walls.

We will start this evening with a review of the first few lines of ב: - ie why each approach does not accept the view of the other Amora....

Rava's Approach

See the approach of Rava and Abaye's response:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף ב עמוד א

ורבא אמר: מהכא +ויקרא כג+ בסכת תשבו שבעת ימים. אמרה תורה: כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי. עד עשרים אמה - אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, אלא דירת קבע.

 How does Rava understand the purpose of the mitzvah of succah and what impact does that have on the structure of the succah? How does this help explain why a succah cannot be more than 20 amot high

אמר ליה אביי: אלא מעתה, עשה מחיצות של ברזל וסיכך על גבן - הכי נמי דלא הוי סוכה? - אמר ליה, הכי קאמינא לך: עד עשרים אמה, דאדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, כי עביד ליה דירת קבע - נמי נפיק. למעלה מעשרים אמה, דאדם עושה דירתו דירת קבע, כי עביד ליה דירת עראי - נמי לא נפיק. 

What would this logically lead to, according to Abaye

How does Rava defend his approach while deflecting Abaye's difficulty

Chazara times - to date

All times Pacific/Central/Eastern

6:00/8:00/9:00     Gabe Fogel
6:40/8:40/9:40     Yaakov Grimaldi
7:20/9:20/10:20   Dov Friedman
7:40/9:40/10:40   Dov Ber Polisky

Summary of Thursday Shiur and Chazara Times

On Thursday evening, we noted the following:

When learning Gemara, both to de-mystify what is happening on the Daf, and as an aid to memorizing the content of the daf, it's important to divide the Gemara up into easy-to-remember segments.  The digital version of our amud, sent to you by email following the shiur, appears below.   
Summary: Our Gemara begins with the citing of a mishna referring to the height of a קורה/beam on a מבוי - with a machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda, parallel to the machloket in our mishna.
In Q1, the Gemara raises a concern about the lack of parallelism between the term used by TK in our mishna vs. the new mishna.
The Gemara offers to answers, A1 and A2 - separated by an איבעית אימא
In Q2,  the Gemara links back to the mishna, asking what the source is for the din of 20 amot being the upper limit of the height of a succah.
To this, there are three approaches,

• Raba
• R. Zeira
• Rava

Raba - awareness that Hashem commanded us to dwell in Succot - while we are dwelling in them; unique interpretation of למען ידעו דורותיכם

R. Zeira - essence of the mitzvah is to dwell in the shade of סכך; 

when the walls are 20 amot high, a person is dwelling in the shade of the walls

Rava - (we have not yet explained this approach)

On R. Zeira and Rava's approaches, Abaye raises an objection, to which each of the two Amoraim, respectively, responds.  We explained Abaye's קושיא on R. Zeira: based on the concept that the shade must be provided by the סכך, and if it isn't the succah is invalid, a succah built in a valley - between mountains - should be invalid, since the shade is provided by the mountains and not the סכך.  R. Zeira's response: The two cases differ: in the 20 ama high succah, the succah is itself not a kosher halachic structure, because it's built in a way in which the walls create the shade and not the סכך; in the עשתרות קרנים  succah, the succah itself is inherently kosher, and it is just its circumstance ie location which mitigates the effect of the סכך.  Such a succah is indeed kosher!

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף ב עמוד א

text from Bar Ilan Responsa Project

גמרא. תנן התם: מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה - ימעט, רבי יהודה אומר: אינו צריך.

1Q מאי שנא גבי סוכה דתני פסולה, ומאי שנא גבי מבוי דתני תקנתא?

A1- סוכה דאורייתא - תני פסולה, מבוי דרבנן - תני תקנתא.

 A2  ואיבעית אימא: בדאורייתא נמי תני תקנתא. מיהו, סוכה (דנפישי מילתה) +מסורת הש"ס: [דנפישין מיליה]+ - פסיק ותני פסולה, מבוי דלא נפיש מיליה - תני תקנתא

: Q2מנא הני מילי?

אמר רבה: דאמר קרא +ויקרא כג+ למען ידעו דרתיכם כי בסכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, עד עשרים אמה - אדם יודע שהוא דר בסוכה, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם יודע שדר בסוכה, משום דלא שלטא בה עינא.

רבי זירא אמר: מהכא +ישעיהו ד+ וסכה תהיה לצל יומם מחרב, עד עשרים אמה - אדם יושב בצל סוכה, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם יושב בצל סוכה, אלא בצל דפנות. אמר ליה אביי: אלא מעתה, העושה סוכתו בעשתרות קרנים, הכי נמי דלא הוי סוכה? - אמר ליה: התם, דל עשתרות קרנים - איכא צל סוכה, הכא דל דפנות - ליכא צל סוכה.

ורבא אמר: מהכא +ויקרא כג+ בסכת תשבו שבעת ימים. אמרה תורה: כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי. עד עשרים אמה - אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, אלא דירת קבע. אמר ליה אביי: אלא מעתה, עשה מחיצות של ברזל וסיכך על גבן - הכי נמי דלא הוי סוכה? - אמר ליה, הכי קאמינא לך: עד עשרים אמה, דאדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, כי עביד ליה דירת קבע - נמי נפיק. למעלה מעשרים אמה, דאדם עושה דירתו דירת קבע, כי עביד ליה דירת עראי - נמי לא נפיק.

Succah vs. Mavui - Approach #2

In its second answer, denoted by the איבעית אימא - the Gemara says that בדאורייתא נמי תני תקנתא - which we explained to mean: in an area of Torah law, the mishna could have also used a terminology of תקנתא - like ימעט was used in mavui.  In other words, contrary to what the Gemara presumed before, the mishna - whether dealing with a Torah law or a rabbinic law - is indeed an instruction manual; its style would not be impacted by the fact that it was relating to a concept/law that precedes the time of the mishna.

The reason, however, that the mishna did not use a lashon of תקנתא, is that נפישי מילתא - there were many topics being dealt with in the mishna of Succah, whereas only one issue was at stake in the mishna of mavui.  Rashi explains that the language in our mishna would have been rather cumbersome, because each particular problem in our mishna, would have had to have its own separate "instruction" as to what to do.  The word פסולה, however, is broad, relating to the invalid status of a succah that had any one of the psulim mentioned there. Rashi goes on to say that the reason this would be objectionable is the principle of לעולם ילמד אדם את תלמידיו בלשון קצרה - one should always try to be concise when teaching.  The mishna  - at the end of the day - has more of a pedagogical than instructional goal. 

Succah vs. Mavui - Approach #1

Last night's shiur contained a review of the first shiur, emphasizing the parallelism between our mishna and the mishna of מבוי.  In both mishnayot, there is a machloket between Tanna Kamma nd R. Yehuda, and in both, the former is is strict and the latter is lenient. But in the former, Tanna Kamma says that the Succah is pasul while in the case of מבוי, the מבוי must be lowered (namely: the beam, joining the extremities of the open wall, must be lowered)

Why, asks the Gemara, is the concept of "takantah"/fixing used by TK in מבוי ?

A1: Succah is d'oraita, while מבוי is d'rabanan

Now what does this mean?  In other words, how does saying Succah is d'oraita explain the terminology "psula" while saying that מבוי is d'rabanan explain why the term ימעט is used?

(we ruled out the idea that there was some sort of inherent distinction - ie that you COULDN'T lower a very high Succah...so it must be that the terminology of psula was more appropriate by Succah, and the term ימעט was more appropriate by מבוי)

Rashi, in a cryptic message, says earlier that the shiurim of Succah were conveyed prior to the mishna being written.  This Rashi is key to understanding the later Rashis, where he says that re: Succah, the term psula was used to convey that "this succah was not made in accordance with Torah and Halacha" while, later, Rashi says in מבוי - that this is תחילת הוראתו - this is the first time  מבוי has been taught.

We explained it this way: However the halacha is derived from the Torah, the d'oraita exists before the Rabanan came and wrote down the mishna.  There is a concept of a halachic Succah, m'doraita, that preceded the Rabanan.  Regarding d'oraita halachot, it is appropriate to present the case of a Succah that does not measure up to the standard that the Torah has set for a halachic Succah.  Hence פסולה - the 20 ama high succah doesn't make the grade!

With a din d'rabanan, however, the rabbis themselves are the ones that are initiating the new halacha of a beam on a מבוי, (all of מבוי's dinim are d'rabanan!).  Re: this topic, the mishna should function as an instruction manual, to tell us how to apply/use the dinim that the rabbis are מחדש.  It's a pragmatic guide to fulfilling the dinim d'rabanan.    Therefore, the term פסולה is not used, but rather ימעט - lower the מבוי so that it is halachically functional.....

The Sky's the Limit - Masechet Succah Daf ב

Monday evening, we began a new sugyah.  "Taking it from the Top" we started with the first mishna in Masechet Succah, on ב. 

A summary of our learning follows:

The mishna records four scenarios regarding the Kashrut of a Succah.  In the first scenario, there is a machloket, while the din in the other three cases is not a subject of dispute.

סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה - פסולה, ורבי יהודה מכשיר

A succah higher than 20 amot high is invalid; R. Yehuda says it's kosher

ושאינה גבוהה עשרה טפחים

If it's not ten tefachim high

ושאין לה שלש דפנות

Or doesn't have three walls

ושחמתה מרובה מצלתה - פסולה.

Or its sunlight is greater than its shade

(all three of the last cases) are pasul

The Gemara begins by introducing a din of מבוי in another mishna in another masechet.  It asks the question: why, in the case of our mishna, does it record the ruling of "psula" (invalid) while the other mishna records a תקנתא? We translated this as a "correction".

 

We noted that although our mishna does indeed use the word "psula" in reference to Tanna Kamma's view (regading a 20 ama high Succah), the term תקנתא does not appear in the mishna of מבוי.  What, then, is the Gemara referring to?

 

We noted the parallel between the structure and content of our mishna vis-a-vis the mishna of מבוי. In both cases, the topic is of a halachic structure which is built quite high, and in both cases we have a machloket between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehudah.  In the mishna of מבוי, Tanna Kamma says ימעט - which means "one should lessen, lower it".  This is the תקנתא to which the Gemara was referring.

So, in other words, the Gemara's question is: why does our Gemara use a blanket language indicating that a twenty-ama-high succah is irrepairable, whereas the high מבוי is subject to repair?

At the end of the shiur we began learning the Rashi on מבוי - which we will continue this evening.

Sunday Night, June 14th

Chazara Sessions scheduled so far:

6:00 Pacific/8 Central/9 Eastern - Dov Friedman
6:40 Pacific/8:40 Central/9:40 Eastern - Gabe Fogel
7:00 Pacific/9:00 Central/10 Eastern - Dov Ber Polisky

Blackberry HomeStretch PT II

The Gemara cites a baraita in which the binding of the lulav comes undone on Yom Tov.  Says the baraita: wrap the binding around the lulav packet as it we do to a vegetable packet.  (my comparison: wrapping a Sefer Torah) and stick the end of the wrap into the minim, tuck it in.  We cannot tie a knot because that is an Av Melacha on Yom Tov.

The Gemara asks: Why just do this? Why not tie a bow, which is not a halachic knot?

Gemara's answer: the baraita is in line with R. Yehuda, who holds that a bow is a halachic knot; the only solution for him is to "wrap and tuck".

Gemara's retort: It cannot be authored by R. Yehuda, since he needs a complete Eged learning it as he does from Agudat Ezov!  So we have a catch-22:

There should be an option to tie a bow, and if we answer that the baraita is authored by R. Yehuda, we are in trouble because he would need a classic knot with which to bind the lulav!!!!

BlackBerry Homestretch - PT I

The last paragraph of the June 8th blog entry read:

Therefore, the Gemara is thus rejecting our previous explanation of R. Eliezer. Because even his father, on whom his view was presumably based, would rule stringently on a psik reisha, and therefore, the case of removing the berries on YT. The question therefore still stands: On what basis does R. Eliezer allow the berry removal on Yom Tov?

To answer this question on R. Eliezer, the Gemara answers:

הכא במאי עסקינן

דאית ליה הושענא אחריתי

In other words, the person who is gathering the berries to eat has another lulav packet, and is not in need of this hadas to perform the mitzvah. 

Somehow, the introduction of this אוקימתא- takes the case out of one of Psik Reisha and makes berry removal - for the sake of eating - permissible.

Why?

Reflecting on this sugyah, there seem to be two ways in which something could become a non-psik reisha:

a) saying that the result is not inevitable - ie reducing the case to one of דבר שאין מתכוין - which we explained meant a melacha that does result, but is not an inevitable result, of a particular action

b) some other categorization of the action that completely removes it from the realm of psik reisha, and therefore makes it permissible.

Let's apply these two possibilities to our Gemara's answer:

a) saying that the result is not inevitable - ie reducing the case to one of דבר שאין מתכוין - This is not what our Gemara means when it says that you have another kosher lulav.  In the case of two chairs, one heavy and one light - the heavy chair will most certainly create the groove in the ground (psik reisha) while the light chair will not (davar sh'en mitkaven).  But this is not true of removing the berries of the hadas Why? Halachically, removing the berries seems to inevitably create a kosher hadas!  So there must be another reason: 

b)  some other categorization of the action that completely removes it from the realm of psik reisha. 

Rashi explains: The case of berry-removal when you have another kosher lulav is dissimilar to an actual psik reisha/head removal - because in the latter case, the animal - however you slice it (pardon the pun) is going to die! There is an objective reality of the animal's death that cannot be avoided.  The halacha recognizes this inevitable result and imputes the intent (to do the melacha, נטילת נשמה, to you , even if you didn't consciously want it to happen) 

However, says Rashi, when you have another lulav, you have not done tikkun kli.

But this begs the question!  How has Rashi solved the problem?

I suggested: It is a chiddush that the Torah considers a myrtle branch a kli; it is only a kli in the sense that can be used seven days a year to fulfill a mitzvah.  In other words, berry removal does not create a bowl, plate, cup or fork - a classic kli/vessel.  It only creates a myrtle without berries.  Viewing it as a kli is a chiddush.  The imputing of intent to a person when they didn't plan the result is also a chiddush.  Given the fact that you do not need the myrtle as a mitzvah object, it reverts to its objective status as a non-mitzvah object; In this case, R. Eliezer holds that we are not so stringent as to combine those two chiddushim.... On the other hand, the death of the animal is objective, and not a chiddush that the Torah gives the death a status as נטילת נשמה.  In this kind of a case, we do impute a person's intent.

Probing the Reasoning Behind R. Eliezer

Tanna Kamma in the baraita is the same view as that reflected in our mishna: no permission to remove the berries on Yom Tov.  R. Eliezer (Ben) R. Shimon however, says it's permissible.

But, asks the Gemara, is it not a case of מתקן מנא? ie the Tikkun Kli that Rashi referred to back on 33a?  How, then, could R. Eliezer permit the berry removal on YT?

The Gemara answers that he holds like  his father, R. Shimon, who rules

דבר שאין מתכוין is permissible.

This principle means that when one does a particular action on Shabbat which will lead to a melacha, as long as you had a main intent in mind - and did not necessarily want the melacha to occur - you are exempt from liability.  Not only that, but it's permissible to go ahead and do the action that will lead to the melacha.  That's why the term מותר is used - ie מותר לכתחילה!

The Gemara rejects this explanation, because R. Shimon only ever said his principle in a case where the melacha would not inevitably result from the action.  But in a case where the resultant melacha is inevitable, this is called פסיק רישיה ולא ימות - you cut off its head and it won't die? The concept is that intent to perform the melacha is attributed to you if your action will definitely result in the melacha - along the lines of the death of an animal when you cut off its head.  The case of removing the berries of the hadas is just such a psik reisha.  Why? The berry removal will definitively result in a kosher hadas!  It is an inevitable a result as the death of the animal. 

Therefore, the Gemara is thus rejecting our previous explanation of R. Eliezer.  Because even his father, on whom his view was presumably based, would rule stringently on a psik reisha, and therefore, the case of removing the berries on YT.   The question therefore still stands: On what basis does R. Eliezer allow the berry removal on Yom Tov?

Why Would Removing the Berries on Yom Tov be permitted?

We started the following section from our sugyah towards the end of Wednesday evening's shiur:

ת"ר אין ממעטין ביום טוב משום ר' אליעזר בר' שמעון אמרו ממעטין והא קא מתקן מנא ביו"ט אמר רב אשי כגון שלקטן לאכילה ור' אליעזר בר' שמעון סבר לה כאבוה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות הב"ע דאית ליה הושענא אחריתי ת"ר הותר אגדו ביו"ט אוגדו כאגודה של ירק ואמאי ליענביה מיענב הא מני ר' יהודה היא דאמר עניבה קשירה מעלייתא היא אי ר' יהודה אגד מעלייתא בעי האי תנא סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

• What is the view of the Tanna Kamma regarding removing berries on Yom Tov?
• What is R. Eliezer's view?
• What question does the Gemara raise - and on whom is the question?
• What is R. Ashi's response?
• Who is the אבוה being referred to here - and what role does this reference have in the response?

Review and Monday's shiur

A summary of where we are holding to date:

Last week's abbreviated schedule brought the following conclusions:

a) The Gemara's inference that the (forbidden) removal of the berries on Yom Tov still produce a kosher hadas, is based on the fact that the action is forbidden in the first place. As the Aruch L'ner explains, the only reason that berry-removal is not allowed on Yom Tov is that it's a productive act, producing a כלי/vessel, according to the sages.  The over-berried myrtle is transformed into a kosher hadas.  If so, it MUST BE that the berry removal (even on YT) makes it kosher - otherwise, what's the problem in the first place?

b) Given the above, the Gemara attempts to define the fact situation of the mishna: what was  the status of the hadas going into Yom Tov?

Possibility #1: It had black berries prior to Yom Tov.  

Conclusion: If so, this is a case of דיחוי מעיקרא - and the mishna thus seems to be ruling that disqualification from the outset can be reversed: דיחוי מעיקרא לא הוי דיחוי

This, then seems to answer at least a part of R. Yirmiya's initial question - and seemingly his נקטם ראשו case!  Why, then, did he not see this in the mishna? This is what the Gemara appears to mean when it says תפשוט מינה etc

Possibility #2: It developed the black berries only on Yom Tov.  When Yom Tov began, it had green berries that only later turned black.

Conclusion: This, however, seems to be a case of נראה ונדחה - and the mishna would then be ruling that such a case can rectify itself - חוזר ונראה.  This is a problem for R. Yirmiya as well: If the halacha makes נראה ונדחה kosher, then it would make דיחוי מעיקרא kosher, as well, based on a Kal V'chomer: If a situation which, it could be argued - should not be kosher, is kosher, how much moreso a situation that is more lenient...

As applied here: A hadas that was rejected - can become kosher again when the berries are removed.  How much moreso a hadas that was never rejected!

If so, R. Yirmiya should have seen an answer to his question in the mishna!

Possibility #3 - same as #1:
So - the Gemara returns to the first suggestion - that the berries were black going into Yom tov.  Why? When it comes to a lesson to be learned from a mishna - we learn the lesser "chiddush" - we don't presume that the halacha is more far-reaching that it is.  We therefore only have permission to read the mishna as validating the principle of דיחוי מעיקרא לא הוי דיחוי, and not the principle of נראה ונדחה חוזר ונראה.

Still left unsolved: Why R. Yirmiya did not see an answer to his question from this mishna!!!

Chazara Times Sunday Evening

All times Pacific/Central/Eastern

6/8/9 Frank Stechel

6:20/8:20/9:20 Ya'akov Grimaldi

6:40/8:40/9:40 Gabe Fogel

7/9/10  Dov Ber Polisky

Still available:


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

Blackberries continued!

Last night's shiur was perhaps the most lively ever. 

Thanks for your participation!

Here's a summary:

The Gemara infers from the mishna - that despite the fact that it is forbidden to remove the extra berries on YT - if one did so, the hadaas is kosher. (How the Gemara knows this, is discussed later on in this blog entry)

When, asks the Gemara, did the berrries turn black?

If we say that this happened on Erev Yom Tov, stayed black and then were removed on YT, then this mishna seems to be teaching the principle of דיחוי מעיקרא לא הוי דחוי.

Problem: This would solve R. Yirmiya's question - why did he not see this in the mishna?

This forces the Gemara to consider that the berries could not have been black on Erev Yom Tov.

Instead, it must be that the berries became black on Yom Tov itself.

If so, however, the hadas would have a status of נראה ונדחה - ie it was fit, and then disqualified.  And if the din in the mishna is that the hadas is kosher, then even a case of נראה ונדחה is kosher, HOW MUCH MORESO would a case of דיחוי מעיקרא BE KOSHER!

If so, this also cannot be the scenario of the mishna, because if so, R. Yirimiya would have surely seen an answer to his question in the mishna. The reason that a case of נראה ונדחה being kosher leads automatically to דיחוי מעיקרא being kosher, is that it is more of a chidush to say something that was kosher, then rejected, can be readmitted as kosher - than saying that something that was never kosher can become kosher.

Recall our comparison to people applying for citizenship: new applicant has better chance of becoming a citizen than someone who was a citizen, but who lost his citizenship....

How did the Gemara know that removal of the berries was kosher even if done on YT?

Aruch L'ner: The reason for berry removal being forbidden is it's like making a vessel/kli on YT.  If we were to invalidate the hadas which had its berries removed on YT, then by definition, it wouldn't be a "tikkun kli" - making a vessel!  Therefore, it must be that the hadas is kosher...