See here for a fascinating explanation.
Friday, October 06, 2006
See here for a fascinating explanation.
Posted by Avromi at 10/06/2006 06:40:00 AM
Posted by ben at 10/06/2006 02:04:00 AM
2. Hashem desired that the Jewish People should be like an aravah that is taken from many waters but they made themselves to be like a tzaftzafah that grows in the mountains. (34a1)
3. An aravah has a red stem, a straight leaf, and its leaves are smooth, whereas a tzaftzafah has a white stem, rounded leaves and the edges of its leaves are serrated like a sickle. (34a2)
4. Rav Chisda maintained that three things had a change in name from when the Bais HaMikdash was destroyed, and they are the aravah, the shofar and the pesorsa, which is a table. The change in name of aravah and chilfa has relevance regarding the willows that are used together with the lulav. The practical difference between a shofar and chatzotzarta is regarding the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The practical difference between pesorsa and pesora is regarding one who wishes to sell a table. Abaye maintains that a part of the stomach called the bei casei is now called huvlila and what was called huvlila is now called bei casei. The practical difference in this name change is regarding a needle that was discovered in the thick wall of the beis hakosos, the reticulum of an animal. Rava bar Yosef maintains that the place that was called Babylonia is now called Bursif and the place that was called Bursif is now called Babylonia, and the practical difference regarding these names is related to a bill of divorce. (34a2-34a3-34b1)
5. There is a dispute regarding the requirement of quantities for the taking of the four species. Rabbi Yishmael maintains that one must take three hadassim, two aravos, one lulav, and one esrog. The hadassim are valid even if two of the hadassim are clipped and there is only one hadas that is not clipped. Rabbi Tarfon, however, maintains that even if all three hadassim are clipped, they are valid. Rabbi Akiva maintains that one is only required to take one hadas and one aravah, similar to the requirement of taking one lulav and one esrog. (34b1)
6. We derive that the four species must all be taken together for one to fulfill the mitzvah, because it is said ulekachtem, and you shall take, which teaches us that it should be a lekicha tama, a complete taking. (34b2)
7. Shmuel maintained that the Halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon who rules that a clipped hadas is valid. Shmuel told the hadassim merchants that they should not raise the prices for hadassim and if they do, he would rule publicly like Rabbi Tarfon that clipped hadassim are valid. The Gemara attempts to prove from Shmuel’s threat that he ruled like Rabbi Tarfon, because otherwise Shmuel could have threatened the merchants with a ruling like Rabi Akiva, who maintains that one only requires a single hadas. The Gemara rejects this proof because although the ruling of Rabbi Akiva appears to be more lenient than that of Rabbi Tarfon, in truth the ruling of Rabbi Akiva is more stringent. The reason for this is because it is easier to find three clipped hadassim than to find one whole hadas. (34b2-34b3)
Posted by ben at 10/06/2006 02:02:00 AM
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The distinction seems to be obvious and Rabbi Solovetchik in his sefer says like this that here the hadas grew in the ground. The berry which grows afterwards will have the same halacha as the hadas from which it grew. The Nishmas Adam was discussing a case where the hadas did not grow from the ground at all and perhaps it is not a valid type of hadas.
Posted by Avromi at 10/05/2006 07:56:00 AM
It would seem from the way the Beis Yosef is discussing the Tur that that the Tur is making a distinction between the word 'chovah' and 'mitzva.' Chovah is more of an obligation and mitzva in this context would connote a nice thing to do.
Posted by Avromi at 10/05/2006 07:19:00 AM
2. The Mishnah ruled that if there are more berries than leaves on a hadas, the hadas is invalid. Rav Chisda initially qualified this ruling to be referring to a case where the berries are in one place. If, however, the berries are spread out on the hadas in two or three places, it will be valid. Rava challenged Rav Chisda, and the Gemara revised Rav Chisda’s statement, stating that Rav Chisda learned that black berries will invalidate the hadas but if the berries are green and are the same color as the leaves, the hadas will be valid. Rav Pappa ruled that red berries are similar to black berries and red berries will thus also invalidate the hadas. (33a4-33b1)
3. The Mishnah ruled that if there are more berries than leaves on a hadas, the hadas is invalid. One is permitted to validate the hadas by removing the berries but one cannot remove the berries on the festival. There is a dispute between Tanaaim if the hadas will be valid if one removes the berries from a hadas on the festival. The Gemara offers several approaches to explain this dispute. (33b2-33b3)
4. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one is permitted to remove the berries on the festival. The Gemara qualifies this ruling to be referring to a case where he plucked the berries with the intention of eating them. Rabbi Eliezer permits this because he rules in accordance with the opinion of his father Rabbi Shimon who maintains that one is permitted to perform a permitted act although he may unintentionally perform a forbidden act in the process. An example of this is when one drags a chair across the dirt on Shabbos where he may make a furrow in the ground. His intention is to move the chair and not to cerate the furrow, so even though he is aware that he may cerate a furrow, Rabbi Shimon maintains that this is permitted. The Gemara questions this because even Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the prohibition will inevitably occur, it is forbidden to perform the permitted act. The Gemara answers that we are referring to a case where the person has another hadas and when he plucks the berries from this hadas, he does not care whether the hadas is valid. Thus, we do not deem the plucking of the berries to be a repair and he has not committed a prohibited act at all. (33b2-33b3)
5. The Mishna rules that a stolen or dry aravah is invalid. An aravah used for idolatry is also invalid. If the top of the aravah was cut off, its leaves were torn or if it is a tzaftzafah, a willow with rounded leaves, it is invalid. If the aravah was withered, some of its leaves fell off, or if the aravah grew from a field and not near a stream, the aravah will be valid. (33b3-33b4)
Posted by Avromi at 10/05/2006 07:01:00 AM
Posted by ben at 10/05/2006 06:38:00 AM
The Pnei Yehoshua writes that this p'sul can only be Rabbinic in nature for we have a principle throughout Shas that we cannot learn from kodshim to chulin.
Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha speculates that perhaps this concept will only apply by mitzvos whose purpose is appeasement and to bring about ritzuy, similar to korbanos, however other mitzvos, it would not apply. This is why Rabbi Yirmiah contemplates that dichuy should apply by the mitzva of the arbah minim which is similar to korbanos that it comprises a concept of appeasement.
Posted by Avromi at 10/05/2006 12:18:00 AM
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
It is interesting to note that the L'vush 650 writes that the measurements of the height of the lulav, hadassim and arovos are all biblical in nature as they are halacha l'Moshe misinai, however the requirement for the shofar to be at least a tefach is only Rabbinic in nature.
Reb Meir Arik in Tal Torah asks on the L'vush as to where is the source to distinguish between the shofar and the lulav? From the Gemora in Niddah, it would seem that they are both Biblically required?
Posted by Avromi at 10/04/2006 12:44:00 AM
Rav Papa states that the Mishna which rules that a lulav which is cracked is disqualified is referring to a case where it split and the two leaves are going in opposite directions. This is called a 'himnek' and Rashi explains that it is similar to a scribe's quill. The Rambam rules that it is invalid if the two parts of the leaf are dstanced from each other to such a degree that they appear like two separate leaves. The Reoh states that the leaf is opened a lot.
Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha states that the bochurim from Yeshiva who ask him about lulavim, showing him that there is a split on the top and they inquire if the lulav is disqualified because of being a himnik. He rules since it can only be seen after gazing at the top of the lulav for a long time and the leaves are only separated a fraction from each other, this is not what the Gemora had in mind and therefore it is a valid lulav.
There is no picture in that sefer, however the poskim do not rule like him and the defining factor seems to be if the leaves are heading in two opposite directions. Make sure you bring your lulav to a Rav for an individual ruling.
Posted by Avromi at 10/04/2006 12:30:00 AM
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Please see here for a demonstration as to how to look for an esrog. Most of you may have picked one out already, but it's a great video on the subject and the points will stay with you for next year iy"H. Once again, we thank Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld and his entire staff for doing such a gevaldeke job at disseminating Torah.Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 10/03/2006 08:14:00 AM
2. The Gemara relates a story that a certain elderly woman went to Rav Nachman and claimed that the Reish Galusa and all the Chachamim were sitting in a stolen Sukkah. Her claim was that the servants of the Reish Galusa stole wood from her and used it to build their Sukkah. Rav Nachman, however, did not pay attention to her claim. The woman persisted with her claim and she said that a woman whose father had three hundred and eighteen servants is screaming before you and you refuse to listen to her. Rav Nachman told his students that the woman did not have a valid claim as once the Sukkah is constructed with stolen wood, the wood does not to be returned. This is based on a rabbinic decree referred to as takanas hashavim, the decree for the returnees, and therefore the Sukkah is deemed to be valid. This decree was enacted so that thieves would be inspired to repent their ways. If a thief was compelled to demolish his structure to return the stolen property, he would not seek to repent. (31a2)
3. There is a dispute in the Gemara if a lulav is required to be hadar, beautiful in its halachic requirements, similar to an esrog, or perhaps a lulav does not have this requirement. (31a)
4. One is not allowed to add a fifth specie to the four species and one is prohibited from taking less than four species. One cannot substitute any of the four species from those that are listed in the Torah, and this is true even if one the species are not available. (31a3-31b1)
5. One cannot use a lulav that is from an asheirah tree from the times of Moshe. The reason for this ruling is because an asheirah must be burned and the asheirah is deemed to have been burned already and subsequently the lulav from the asheirah tree does not have the requisite measurements for a lulav to be considered valid. (31b2-31b3)
Posted by Avromi at 10/03/2006 03:07:00 AM
Rashi explains that the woman was referring to Avrohom Avinu and his 318 servants. The commentators offer various explanations as to what was the meaning in this woman's words and the analogy to Avrohom's servants.
The Chasam Sofer cites the Gemora in Chulin 89a which states how harsh stealing is and proves this from the servants of Avrohom who stole from Sdom and Avrohom could not return that which they stole. The old woman thought that the Rabbinic decree of not returning stolen objects which are used in the construction of a building would only apply when there are many stolen objects and it would be very cumbersome to deconstruct the building to return those beams, however when the stolen wood is few in number and only being used for s'chach, perhaps the decree does not apply and the sukkah should be disqualified. Rav Nachman finally responded and ruled that the decree applies in all cases. Whenever wood is stolen and subsequently used in a building, whether it's a lot of wood or few and whether it's a mansion or a sukkah, the thief acquires the wood and owes money instead.
Monday, October 02, 2006
If one steals wood and uses it for s'chach, it is valid. One of the reasons for this is because the thief dos not have to return the wood, rather the value of the wood. thisis because there was an injunction issued on anyone who steals something and uses it as part of his house or building that he acquires it and he only owes the original owner the value of the stolen object. The sages were concerned that otherwise (if he would have to return that particular beam) the robbers would not repent and return that which they stole.
A question is asked on our Gemora. Biblically, one does not acquire the stolen object - it is only a Rabbinic decree that the wood does now belong to the theif. If so, how can the robber fulfill his Biblical obligation with something that is not Biblically his?
The Shar Hamelech equates this case with a Gemora in Bava Basra 47b that states if one forces someone to sell something, the sale is considered final and deemed valid. Over here where one is obligated to listen to the Sages, it is as if the thief purchased the wood from the owner and now owes him money for it. It is a completely valid sale even Biblically and hence he will fulfill the obligation of sukkah with that s'chach.
Posted by Avromi at 10/02/2006 11:35:00 PM
2. Rabbi Yitzchok maintains that just like one could fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav on the second day, he can also fulfill the mitzvah with a stolen lulav. (30a2)
3. Rav Huna told the merchants who purchased hadassim, myrtle branches, from gentiles that they should ensure that the gentiles cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants. Rav Huna did this because he was concerned that the gentiles had stolen the land from a Jew and land cannot be deemed stolen. This means that even if the original owner of the land despairs of recovering the property, the thief is not considered to be the owner and the original owner retains ownership of the land. Rav Huna intended that the gentiles should cut the branches and give the branches to the merchants so the abandonment of the owner regarding the produce would occur while the branches were in the hands of the gentiles, and there would be a change of ownership when the merchants received the branches. This procedure would thus allow the merchants to acquire the branches in accordance with the principles regarding acquisition of stolen objects. (30a2-30b1)
4. There is a principle that allows a thief to acquire stolen property if there is a physical change in the stolen object. The Gemara asks that since according to one opinion, one is required to tie the lulav together with the other two species, the tying should constitute a physical change and thus the merchants should be permitted to acquire the hadassim in this manner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna follows the opinion that maintains that the lulav does not have to be tied with the other species and therefore no physical change occurs to the hadassim. Alternatively, even if Rav Huna requires the lulav to be tied with the other species, this tying is not deemed to be a change because the change can be reversed and the rule is that a change that can be reversed and the object will revert to its original form is not deemed to be a change. (30b1-30b2)
Posted by Avromi at 10/02/2006 09:52:00 PM
Posted by ben at 10/02/2006 01:28:00 AM
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Posted by ben at 10/01/2006 04:27:00 PM
Posted by Avromi at 10/01/2006 03:46:00 PM
2. One may leave a lamp inside the Sukkah, unless the Sukkah is so small that there will be a concern that that the walls of the Sukkah will catch fire from the heat of the lamp. (29a1)
3. One who is sitting in the Sukkah can leave the Sukkah if it begins to rain, provided that the rain is coming down hard enough to spoil his food. The Rema rules that the amount of rain that is required to allow one to exit his Sukkah is the same amount of rain that would cause a person to exit his house if he had a leak in his roof. (29a1)
4. If one was eating or sleeping in the Sukkah and it began to rain and he exited the Sukkah, he does not need to return to the Sukkah even if the rain ceased. The reason for this ruling is because it is considered distress for one to have to return to the Sukkah. One who insists on eating in the Sukkah while it is raining is deemed to be a hedyot, a commoner, and he does not earn reward for the mitzvah. (29a1-29a2)
5. The Mishna rules that all four species, i.e. lulav, esrog, hadas, and aravah are invalid if they are stolen, regardless of whether the owner had despaired from having the item retuned to him. (29b3)
6. If the spine or the majority of a Lulav’s leaves became dried out, the lulav is invalid. A lulav is deemed to be dry when instead of being a natural green, it turned white. (29b3)
Posted by Avromi at 10/01/2006 02:17:00 PM
Posted by ben at 10/01/2006 02:00:00 PM
1. One should not sleep in a study hall. (28a1)
2. One should be careful not to speak unnecessary words in a study hall. (28a1)
3. One should not speak or even entertain thoughts of Torah in an unclean place i.e. near a garbage dump or near refuse. (28a1)
4. One should commence the Pesach Seder as soon as possible so that the children will remain awake and interested. One must even exit the study hall early on Ever Pesach so that he can commence the Seder on time. (28a1)
5. The Mishna cites a dispute between Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the minimum dimensions that are required for the Sukkah to be valid. Bais Shammai maintains that the Sukkah must be large enough to accommodate ones head, most of his body and his table. Bais Hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if the Sukkah cannot accommodate the table. Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai also disagree regarding a large Sukkah that is adjacent to a house and the table is inside the house. Bais Shammai maintains that one does not fulfill his mitzvah in this manner as we are concerned that he will be drawn after his table that is in the house and Bais Hillel disagrees. (28a3)
6. Women, slaves and children are exempt from the mitzva of Sukkah. (28a3)
7. Throughout the seven days of Sukkos, one makes his house a temporary dwelling place and his Sukkah a permanent dwelling place. The Aruch HaShulchan writes that one who wishes to speak with his friend onSukkos should do so inside the Sukkah. (28b2)
8. One should endeavor to study Torah in the Sukkah unless it is more conducive to his studies to learn in the house. (28b3)
Thank you to Rabbi Jay Spero for providing us with the highlights http://jbuff.com/daf_yomi_halacha.htm Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 10/01/2006 01:03:00 PM