Previous daf

1)

(a) An Egyptian Hadas is Kasher, in spite of its secondary name - because the Torah does not call it a Hadas, but an 'Anaf Eitz Avos' (which incorporates all types of trees that fit that description, irrespective of what they are called).

(b) A Hadas remains Kasher, even if most of the leaves have become dry - provided the top set of three remain moist.

(c) A Hadas whose top has been severed, becomes Kasher again - if a berry grows at the point where it was severed.

(a) With regard to Korbanos, we apply the principle of 'Dichuy' - which means that if an animal was fit to bring as a Korban at the time that it was Shechted, and then it became unfit, it cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach, even if it subsequently becomes fit again.

(b) The Gemara asks whether a Hadas is Kasher if its top was severed on Erev Yom-Tov, and then it grew a berry on Yom-Tov - does the concept of 'Dichuy' apply to Mitzvos like it applies to Korbanos.

(c) This is a case of 'Dichuy Me'ikara' - since, when Yom-Tov entered, it was unfit (in which case, it is not quite the same as the of Dichuy by Korbanos, as we explained in a. - see Tosfos DH 'Niktam, who disagrees with Rashi on two scores). The Gemara makes no distinction - yet.

(a) If the wind covered the blood of a bird or a beast that had been Shechted, one becomes Chayav to cover it - only if it subsequently became uncovered again.

(b) Rav Papa deduces from the fact that one becomes Chayav to cover it - that 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos'.

(c) We cannot prove conclusively from Rav Papa that 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' - because it may well be that Rav Papa himself is in doubt, so he ruled 'Ein Dichuy' ('le'Chumra - to obligate covering the blood); whereas in our case, where 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' creates a Kula (to be able to use the Hadas on which the berry grew, on Yom-Tov), perhaps he will rule le'Chumra, and say 'Yesh Dichuy ...'.

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok rules that if one removed the excessive berries from the Hadas on Yom-Tov, the Hadas remains Pasul. According to the Chachamim - it becomes Kasher.

(b) There are three possible ways of explaining their Machlokes - initially, we think that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok holds 'Yesh Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' (and once the Hadas becomes Pasul, it is permanently rejected and cannot subsequently be brought); whereas the Rabbanan hold 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' (and the moment the berries are removed, the Hadas becomes Kasher).

(c) Both Tana'im will either hold that ...

1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' or ...
2. ... that we do not learn 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' by Lulav from Sukah (which must be made Kasher).

(d) According to the last explanation, we are talking about 'Dichuy Me'ikara', seeing as they both require Eged, and when he tied the Lulav - on Erev Yom-Tov, it was unfit already then.

6)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah too, holds 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'.

(b) He learns it from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Lekichah" "Lekichah" from the Agudas Ezov by Pesach Mitzrayim.

(c) The Rabbanan do not hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - yet they agree that it is a Mitzvah to bind it, because of the Mitzvah of "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu".

(a) According to the initial version of Rav Chisda quoting Rabeinu ha'Gadol - alias Rav - the Pesul of more berries than leaves does not apply when they are in two or three locations.

(b) Rava's objection to Rav Chisda's statement - is that it is not logical to be lenient when the berries are in a few places, since (due to the fact that the berries are black and the leaves are green) this is a marked Esrog and should be Pasul, too.

(c) So we conclude that, in fact, Rav makes no distinction between one location and a number of locations (in this regard) - what Rav really said was that if the berries are *green* (like the leaves) then even if there are more berries than leaves, the Hadas will be Kasher.

(d) Red berries will invalidate the Hadas too - as we see by black-looking blood of Nidus, which is listed among the five colors of Tamei blood by a woman, because 'black is really red that has gone off-color'.

8)

(a) If our Mishnah validates the Hadas when the number of berries was *reduced before the binding*, then - a. it is not a case of 'Ta'aseh (bi'Pesul) ve'Lo min he'Asuy' (since the binding is the 'Ta'aseh', and when the Lulav was bound it was already Kasher) and b. it never became a Pasul Hadas shel Mitzvah, in which case, 'Dichuy' will not apply to it, either.

(b) So it must be speaking when the berries were removed *after* the Lulav was bound. In that case, it is a case of 'Dichuy Me'ikara', and we see that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Lo Havi Dichuy' (and that this Tana does not learn the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' from Sukah).

(c) This proof however, is based on the assumption that the binding is a Mitzvah. But this is not the case - in fact, binding the Lulav is no more than a preparation, in which case neither 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' will apply, nor 'Dichuy' (since he removed the excessive berries before Yom-Tov). And the Mishnah is coming to teach us that the binding of the Lulav is no more than a preparation, but not a Mitzvah.

(a) We infer from the Tana of our Mishnah, who forbids reducing the berries on Yom-Tov (but does not declare the Hadas Pasul, if he did so) - that the Hadas is in fact, Kasher.

(b) On the assumption that the berries turned black on Yom-Tov, we try to learn from him that 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh Lo Havi Dichuy'.

(c) We refute this proof - by establishing our Mishnah when the berries turned black *before* Yom-Tov, so all we can prove from our Mishnah is that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Lo Havi Dichuy' (but nor 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh').

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah. In his opinion, one may reduce the number of berries on Yom-Tov - because we are speaking when he picked them, not in order to rectify the Hadas, but to eat them, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father, who says 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar'.

(b) The classical case of 'Pesik Reisha' is cutting off an animal (or a bird)'s head, having no intention that it should die.

(c) It is not in fact, 'Pesik Reisha' - because it speaks when he already had sufficient Hadasim, in which case, this is no more than a myrtle twig, and not a Hadas.

(d) We cannot learn from here that one may build a second house if one already has one - because a house is a house (whether he already has one or not); whereas a myrtle-twig only becomes a Hadas if he needs it, otherwise, it remains no more than a mere myrtle-twig.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah (who requires the three species to be tied together), if the knot that ties them comes undone - there is nothing that one can do. Even a bow is forbidden, since, in his opinion, a bow is considered a knot.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa, who permits tying it (like one ties a bunch of vegetables), but not into a bow - holds like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to the Din of a bow on Shabbos (or Yom-Tov), but like the Rabbanan who hold that a Lulav does not require binding.

(a) Most of the Pesulim of the Lulav also apply to the Aravah, but that of a Tzaftzfah - a type of Aravah with round leaves - is unique to an Aravah.

(b) An Aravah is not Pasul if it is withered, missing some of its leaves or if it grew in a field that was watered manually.

(c) Besides that the Aravah should grow by a brook, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Arvei Nachal" - that the leaves of an Aravah must be elongated like a river.

(d) And he learns from the Torah's use of the plural in "*Arvei* Nachal" - that (in spite of the Lashon "Arvei *Nachal* - which is preferable) an Aravah is Kasher even if it grew in a field that was watered manually or on a mountain, where there is no brook.