POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 33
SUKAH 33 (Lag b'Omer) - Dedicated by Rabbi Yisroel Shaw in memory of his
grandfather, Mr. Bernie Slotin (Dov Ber ben Moshe Mordechai z'l), whose soul
ascended to its eternal resting place thirty days ago.
1) A HADAS LESS MOST OF ITS LEAVES
(a) Question: How is it possible to have a Hadas which has
lost most of its leaves yet the leaves still entirely
cover the branch?
2) A DRIED OUT HADAS
(b) Answer (Abaye): A Hadas Mitzra'ah often has even seven
leaves in one place, such that even if four fall off,
it still qualifies as Avos with the remaining three.
(c) (Abaye) This indicates that the Hadas Mitzra'ah is
(d) Question: Is that not obvious (since it is a Hadas)!?
(e) Answer: We might have forbidden it since it has a
qualifier in its name.
(f) Question: Then perhaps it should be invalidated!?
(g) Answer: The term Etz Avos allows for any type of Hadas.
(a) As long as three moist leaves remain, the Hadas is
3) DICHUI FOR MITZVOS
(b) (R. Chisda) They must be at the tip of the Hadas, not
in the middle.
(a) (Ula b. Chinena) A Tamarah which sprouted from the end
of the cut tip of a Hadas renders it Kosher.
4) A HADAS WITH MORE BERRIES THAN LEAVES
(b) Question (R. Yirmiyah): What if the growth sprouted
after YomTov had entered (such that its tip was cut
when YomTov began)?
1. Would we say that the Hadas has been Nidcheh from
its ability to perform the Mitzvah, or not?
(c) Answer: Teiku, the matter is unresolved.
2. Answer: This can be answered by learning the
Mishnah regarding Kisui HaDam where if the wind
covered, and subsequently uncovered the Dam, one
still has the Mitzvah to cover it.
3. This seems to indicate Ein Dichui by Mitzvos.
4. Question: The very question of R. Yirmiyah was
whether this case of Ein Dichui generalizes to all
cases, or whether that only applies when it would
be a Chumrah (requiring him to cover the Dam) but
not when it would result in a Kulah (allowing the
(d) Question: Could this be the Machlokes regarding a Hadas
whose berries had been plucked on YomTov!?
1. R. Elazar b.R. Tzadok disallows and Chachamim
allow this Hadas to be used.
(e) Answer: No, they may agree to Ein Dichui, but argue
whether we derive from Sukah the restriction of Ta'aseh
v'Lo Min HeAsui.
2. We are assuming that the Minim do not need to be
bound in order to be used; or, even if they must
be bound, there is no restriction of Ta'aseh v'Lo
3. They would then be arguing over whether there is
Dichui (R. Elazar, since it could not be used at
the time it was bound with the other Minim) or not
(Chachamim, that Mitzvah opportunities return).
(f) Alternate Answer: They would certainly learn from
Sukah, but they are arguing over whether the Minim must
be bound together (the Chachamim hold that a Lulav is
Kosher even if not bound, and R. Yehudah holds that it
must be bound to be Kosher).
1. Question: What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
(g) Question: It seems that neither of these Tanaim would
have taught that it is a Mitzvah to bind them, but it
not Me'akev, yet we find this in the Beraisa?!
2. Answer: Gezeirah Shavah from the Eizov.
3. Question: How will the Chachamim learn this
4. Answer: They do not have a tradition to learn this
(h) Answer: The Beraisa is the Chachamim, and the require-
ment is to beautify the Mitzvah, but is not Me'akev.
(a) (R. Chisda citing Rav with great reverence) This Pesul
only applies if the berries are clustered in one part
of the Hadas, but not if they are spread over two or
three places on the Hadas.
(b) Question (Rava): But such spread-out berries makes the
Hadas appear Menumar (leopard-like) and is Pasul!?
5) DICHUI FOR MITZVOS (cont'd)
(c) Answer: Rav actually qualified the Mishnah by saying
that the Pesul applies only if the berries are black,
not if they are green.
(d) (R. Papa) Red berries are like black ones (we see by
Dam Nidah that black is the extension of red).
(a) Question: The berries must have been plucked off the
Hadas after they were bound to the Lulav (since if they
were plucked prior, the permission to use them would be
obvious), and the permission to use them should teach
us that there is no Dichui for Mitzvos!?
6) NIREH V'NIDCHEH
(b) Answer: The Mishnah speaks of their being plucked after
they were bound, but before YomTov began, and Hazmanah
(as the binding is viewed as Hazmanah) is not a cutoff
point for readiness regarding the Mitzvah.
(a) While the Mishnah prohibits plucking the berries on
YomTov, it implies that were one to do so, the Hadas
would be Kosher.
7) DAVAR SH'EIN MISKAVEN
(b) Question: Upon analysis, we should be able to derive
several Halachos from this implication.
1. If the berries blackened before YomTov then the
permission to use such a Hadas (plucked on YomTov)
should prove Ein Dichui!
(c) Answer: You may prove Ein Dichui, but not Nireh
2. If the berries blackened on YomTov (such that the
Hadas was Kosher when YomTov entered, but became
Pasul when the berries blackened, and is now
restored to its Kashrus by the berries being
plucked), then we should prove that Nireh
v'Nidcheh may be Nireh once again!
(a) (Chachamim) One may not pluck the berries on YomTov.
8) TYING ON YOMTOV
(b) (Citing R. Eliezer b.R. Shimon) One may do so.
(c) Question: But that is Mesaken on YomTov (rendering it
fit for use)!?
(d) Answer (R. Ashi): He plucked the berries to eat, and R.
Eliezer b.R. Shimon holds (like his father) that Davar
Sh'Ein Miskaven is permitted.
(e) Question: But Abaye and Rava taught that R. Shimon
never permitted a Davar Sh'Ein Miskaven when it is a
(f) Answer: We permit the plucking where he has other
Hadasim with which to be Yotze the Mitzvah, (he is not
rendering this one fit for use).
(a) If the binding unties on YomTov he must wind the
binding around and tuck it in (not tying it at all).
9) MISHNAH: THE ARAVAH
(b) Question: Why not make a bow (which will last better
and is not considered Keshirah)!?
(c) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah who views a bow as
(d) Question: If the Beraisa is R. Yehudah (who also holds
that the Torah obligates the binding of the Minim) then
simply wrapping the binding around is insufficient!?
(e) Answer: The author of this Beraisa agrees with R.
Yehudah on one point (forbidding a bow) but disagrees
on another (whether the Torah obligates the binding).
(a) A stolen or dried out Aravah is Pesulah, as well as one
from Asheirah, Ir HaNidachas, one whose tip was cut
off, whose leaves (in the majority) have fallen, and
the Tzaftzafa (whose leaves are round).
10) ARVEI NACHAL
(b) If it is Kemushah (not fully dried out, or if a
minority of its leaves have fallen off or it grows in a
(Ba'al) field (not by a river), it is Kesheirah.
(a) This teaches that it must grow by a river.
(b) Alternately, its leaves are elongated, like a river
(and must not be round, like the Tzaftzafa).
(c) (Tana Kama of another Beraisa) The plural use of Arvei
that teaches the Aravos of a field (not by a river) may
(d) (Aba Shaul) The plural refers to the Aravah of the
Lulav and that of the Mikdash.
(e) Question: Whence will the Tana Kama learn the
obligation of surrounding the Mizbeach with Aravah in
(f) Answer: It is one of three Halachos l'Moshe MiSinai
reported by R. Asi citing R. Yochanan.