Daf Yomi - Sukkah 34 - Hadasim, Aravos, and Bar Kochba Coins

Whereas the Lulav of the First Revolt includes many twigs of willow and myrtle, the Lulav of the Second Revolt has just one twig of each. Was there a reason for this or was it just a whim of the engraver?

See here for a fascinating explanation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 34- To tie the esrog or not

The Gemara derives from the word ulekachtem, and you shall take, that the four species are essential to each other, i.e. that one must have all four species available when he is prepared to fulfill the mitzvah. Nonetheless, one is not required to tie the esrog together with the other species, because the verse states the fruit of a hadar tree, (vekapos) the branches of date palms, and it does not state (kapos) and the branches. This teaches us that one is not required to tie the esrog together with the other three species. The Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 651:11 rules that one must hold the esrog next to the lulav while waving the species and one must waive them all together. The Bikkurei Yaakov quotes the Taz who rules that if one ties the lulav together with the esrog, it is invalid because it is said regarding the lulav kapos and not vekapos. The Bikkurei Yaakov questions the words of the Taz, because our Gemara merely states that from the fact that the Torah did not write vekapos we derive that is not required to tie the esrog even according to the opinion that maintains that one is required to bundle the species. We maintain, however, that one is not biblically required to bundle the species at all, so why should bundling the esrog with the other species be forbidden? The Bikkurei Yaakov offers other proofs to his thesis and concludes that if one bundles the esrog with the other species, he has fulfilled the mitzvah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 34- Highlights

1. The words brook willows refer to aravos that grow by a brook whereas a tzaftzafah grows in the mountains. (34a1)
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)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33 - Berries Growing in the Air

In the Sefer Nishmas Adam, he speculates as to what the halacha would be if any of the four species would be grown in a planter without a hole. Would we be able to use them for the mitzva? Some ask on him from our Gemora which states that if a berry grows on the hadas after it is cut from the ground, the hadas is valid even though the berry grew when the hadas was not connected to the ground. This should be analagous to growing a hadas in a planter.

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33 - Chovah Vs. Mitzva

The Tur 651 writes that even though we hold that the lulav is not required to be tied to the hadasim and arovos, nevertheless it is a mitzva to do so because it would appear nicer. He cites Rashi that there is an obligation to do so because of the possuk zeh keli v'anvehu. The Beis Yosef comments that our Rashi does not say that there is an obligation, rather it is a mitzva to do so and the explanation can be like the Tur that it is because of beauty.

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33 - Highlights

1. The Mishnah rules that if the top of a hadas was cut off, it is invalid. Ulla learned that if a bud grows at the top of the hadas, it is valid. Rabbi Yirmiyah queried regarding a case where the top of the hadas was cut off prior to the festival and a bud grew on the hadas on the festival. The query was, do we say that once a mitzvah was rejected, i.e. the hadas was unfit from the onset of the festival, the hadas will remain rejected permanently, or do we say that that it is only a temporary rejection. This query is based on the principle of dichui, rejection, regarding sacrifices, i.e. an animal was slaughtered for an offering and subsequently one could not offer the animal for whatever reason. Since the animal was rejected as an offering, it can no longer be offered, so the question here is whether this principle will also apply to a mitzvah. The Gemara does not resolve the question. (33a1-33a2)
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)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33- Humble in a group

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yehudah maintains that one is required to bundle the lulav with the other species, and he derives this ruling from a gezeirah shavah of taking, taking, from the case of the bundle of eizov, hyssop, that the Jews took prior to departing from Egypt. That verse estates and you shall take a bundle of eizov. We can interpret the verse homiletically to mean that if one desires to be a part of the bundle, i.e. the group, he should humble himself like the hyssop, which is a low branch.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33 - Letters on the Side of a Book on Shabbos

The Mishna ruled that if there are more berries than leaves on the hadas, it is invalid. One can remove the berries before the festival but one is forbidden to remove the berries on the festival. The reason for this ruling is because removing the berries is deemed to be repairing the hadas, and one is prohibited from repairing a utensil on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that it would be 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.Tosfos explains that the answer of the Gemara is predicated on the principle of melacha sheaina tzricha legufa, an act that was not performed for a defined purpose. Normally we say that it is rabbinically prohibited to perform an act where one does not desire the forbidden outcome. However, when there is a mitzvah involved, one is permitted to perform the act outright. [Tosfos seems to maintain that the person plucking the berries has intention for the mitzvah.] Teshuvos Imrei Yosher rules based on the words of Tosfos that one would be permitted to study on Shabbos from a sefer that has letters and words on the side of the pages. This would be permitted even though when he turns the pages he is in effect forming or erasing words. The reason for this ruling is because when one is preoccupied with a mitzvah, the Chachamim were not concerned with the prohibited act that will result if the result is unintended and undesired. The Mishna Berura rules that one can even read from a book with letters on the side even if he is not engaged in Torah study. The reason for this ruling is because one is not deemed to be writing or erasing as the pages of the book are meant to be turned. This would be analogous to opening and closing a door which would not be deemed building or destruction because a door is meant to be opened and closed.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 33 - Appeasement

If the top of a hadas leaf is cut off, it is disqualified. Ula learned that if a fruit grows in its place, it is kosher. Rabbi Yirmiah posed a shaila as to what would be the halacha if the top was cut off from before Yom Tov and the fruit grew on Yom Tov. Is there a concept that once the hadas was disqualified on Yom Tov, it cannot be revived and become kosher because once it is pushed away from the mitzva it remains in that state or do we say that now it is valid? There is the principle of dichuy by korbanos where once a korban is deemed to be invalid, it cannot become qualified to be used as a korban later. Do we compare mitzvos to korbanos? This question remains unresolved.

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 32 - Requirement for Shofar and Lulav to be a Tefach

The Gemora states that the spine of the lulav must be one tefach higher than where the hadassim end. The Gemora Niddah lists five things where the measurement is a tefach. Included in the listing is the third wall of a sukkah, the size of a shofar and the tefach of the lulav. Seemingly, the measurement for the lulav and shofar would be required Biblically just as the third wall of a sukkah must be at least a tefach and that was learned from a halacha l'Moshe misinai.

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?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 32 - Himnik

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 31 - 36 Esrog Video!!!

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!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 31 - Highlights

1. There is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Chachamim regarding a stolen Sukkah and regarding one who constructs his Sukkah in a public domain. The dispute is predicated on a dispute as to whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of Sukkah in a Sukkah that is not his. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Sukkah in a Sukkah that is not his and for this reason a stolen Sukkah is invalid. (31a1)
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)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 31 - An Old Woman Raving and Avrohom's 318 Servants

The Gemora relates a story that a certain old woman went to Rav Nachman and claimed that the Reish Gilusa and all the chachamim are sitting in a stolen sukkah. Her claim was that the servants of the Reish Galusa stole wood from her and used it for the s'chach on their sukkah. Rav Nachman paid no attention to her claim. She persisted and said that a woman whose father had 318 servants and you refuse to listen to her. Rav Nachman responded that there is no valid claim here for once the sukkah is constructed with stolen wood, the wood does not to be returned based on a Rabbibic decree and therefore the sukkah is deemed to be valid. This decree was issued in order to inspire the thiefs to repent. If they would be compelled to deconstruct their building to return the stolen property, they would not repent.

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 31 - Stolen S'chach

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.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 30 - Highlights

1. One cannot use a stolen lulav even on the second day of Sukkos because it is a mitzvah that is brought about through the violation of a negative prohibition and is thus invalid. There would be no distinction whether the owner despaired of recovering the lulav or not, because even if the owner despaired of recovering the lulav, the mitzvah is invalid because it was brought about through the violation of a prohibition. (29b4-30a1)
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)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 30 - Mitzvah performance with more intention

The Gemara discusses the concept of a mitzvah that is brought about through one who violates a prohibition. The Rishonim explain that this principle only applies when the mitzvah cannot be performed unless one violates the prohibition. This principle teaches us a profound lesson regarding mitzvah performance. Very often we catch ourselves performing mitzvos by rote and we attempt to understand how this could have happened. The Gemara informs us that a mitzvah should be a conscientious effort, not just a mere performance of a daily ritual. If one can invalidate a mitzvah by performing it through a transgression, certainly one can enhance a mitzvah by performing it with the proper intention. We have been taught that HaShem rewards one for performing a positive action five hundred times more than for performing a negative action. If we would just improve our mitzvah performance even slightly, we would already be the beneficiaries of a great reward.

Read more!

Lekavod Yom HaKadosh G'mar Chasima Tova

The Day of Yom Kippur is upon us, and it is worth examining the essence of the day, so we can enter into this Holy Day in the proper frame of mind. Yom Kippur literally means the Day of Atonement. We will be receiving atonement for our sins that we have committed throughout the year. Yet, one must wonder what would happen if he did not receive atonement. The Gemara tells us that as long as one repents, Yom Kippur will serve as atonement for his sins. Apparently, it is not merely a day of atonement. It is a day of atonement predicated on repentance. Furthermore, there are many Jews who on the surface do not appear to repent, yet they live out the following year in peace. How is this possible? In the preamble to Kol Nidrei that we recite on Yom Kippur eve, we recite a very enigmatic declaration. The words we recite are: with the knowledge of the congregation, and with the knowledge of the Omnipresent, we are permitted to pray with the transgressors. This permit begs for an explanation. The Gemara teaches us that the ketores was comprised of eleven spices, and one of them was called the chelbanah, galbanum. This particular spice had a very foul odor, yet was included in the spices of the ketores, which was the most cherished of all services that were performed in the Bais HaMikdash. The Gemara teaches us that from here we derive the ruling that we include the wanton sinners of Israel in our fast days. Why is the ketores the object of this teaching? When Yaakov came before his father Yitzchak to receive the blessings, it is said and he smelled the fragrance of his clothing, and he blessed him. The Gemara states that the word for clothing, begadav, can be interpreted homiletically to mean bogdodv, his rebellious ones. The Gemara states that even the wanton sinners of Israel emit a wonderful fragrance. Thus, at the onset of Jewish history, the wicked were already incorporated into the blessings of the righteous. When one begins to understand the theme of Yom Kippur, it will become very clear why even the wicked of Israel are granted atonement. We can adopt the approach that our preamble refers to the wicked that do not even come to synagogue to pray on Yom Kippur, but then we will be left wondering how they earn atonement. It would be more plausible to assume that even amongst the worshipers on Yom Kippur there are those who may have not yet repented from their sins, and it is regarding those Jews who we address the declaration that we are permitted to pray with the wanton sinners. The Gemara tells us that even a Jew who sinned is still considered a Jew. If every Jew is always considered a Jew, then every Jew can gain atonement on Yom Kippur. This is accomplished by every Jew in the synagogue accepting upon himself responsibility for every Jew. Even those who emit a foul odor, and even those who rebel against HaShem, are still incorporated into the Yom Kippur service. A wanton sinner can receive the blessing of the righteous, as long as he is connected to the greater body of Israel. Let us enter into this Yom Kippur with the knowledge that we are functioning as the Kohen Gadol in the Bais HaMikdash, who sought atonement for the sins of all of Israel. When we bear this weighty responsibility in mind, we will surely be focused on the holiness of the day, and HaShem will once again declare the word salachti, I forgive. HaShem should grant us all a G’mar Chasima Tova.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 30 - Sukkah in a Public Domain

The Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim 637:3 discusses whether it is permitted for one to construct a Sukkah in a public domain without permission. The Magen Avraham writes that such a Sukkah may be deemed a stolen Sukkah and will be invalid. One cannot say that the local population forgo their rights to the land because the entire populace, including gentiles, have a share in the land. The Magen Avraham quotes Rashi on Daf 30 who implies that the only concern of a stolen Sukkah is regarding stealing from a Jew but not when stealing from a gentile. Although one is normally forbidden to steal from a gentile, if one steals from a gentile it is not considered a mitzvah that was brought about through a transgression. The Magen Avraham also quotes the Yerayim who posits the exact opposite approach. The Yerayim maintains that even according to the opinion that maintains that stealing from a gentile is permitted, the stolen object does not belong to the Jew. The Magen Avraham concludes his ruling based on the opinions of the Rashba and the Bais Yosef that one cannot construct a Sukkah in a public domain and if one went and constructed the Sukkah anyway, the Sukkah is invalid and one who recites a blessing in such a Sukkah is reciting the Name of Hashem in vain.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 29 - Highlights

1. One should not bring large serving pots into the Sukkah unless the pots will be used during the meal. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some opinions these pots should not be brought into the Sukkah even during the meal. One can, however, bring small pots into the Sukkah. One should remove plates and pans from the Sukkah after the meal has ended so as not to belittle the sanctity of the Sukkah. One can, however, leave drinking cups inside the Sukkah. (29a1)
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)

Thank you to Rabbi Jay Spero for providing us with the highlights http://jbuff.com/daf_yomi_halacha.htm

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 29 - Alive and praising HaShem

The Mishnah states that a dry lulav is invalid, and the Gemara explains that the reason why it is invalid is because the Torah requires that the four species be hadar, beautiful, and a dry lulav is not beautiful. The Yerushalmi states that the reason why a dry lulav is invalid is because it is said (Tehillim 115:17) the dead cannot praise HaShem. What is the connection between the four species and praising HaShem? It is said (Ibid 96:12-13) the field and everything in it will exult; then all the trees of the forest will sing with joy. Before HaShem, for He will have arrived, He will have arrived to judge the earth. The Medrash states that these verses allude to the idea that after the judgment of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, one takes the trees of the forest, i.e. the lulav. It is said that the trees of the forest will sing with joy, and this alludes to the idea that the lulav is used to praise HaShem. Additionally, Rabbeinu Bachye (Vayikra 23:40) writes that the four species are fresh and alive, and the Torah and its recipients are alive, and we take the four species that have life and we praise HaShem, Who is referred to as the Living G-d.

Read more!

Daf Yomi -Sukkah 28 - Highlights

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!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 29 - Four Species and Hashem's Name

Rashi writes that a dry lulav is invalid because the mitzvah must be mehuderes, performed with a beautiful object, as it is said this is my G-d and I shall beautify Him, and we learn from this verse that one should beautify himself before HaShem when fulfilling a mitzvah. Tosfos questions the words of Rashi from the Gemara earlier on Daf 11b that states that the mitzvah of glorifying a mitzvah is only a Halacha l’chatchila, preferable, but the mitzvah is not invalidated if one uses an object that is not beautiful for a mitzvah. The Gemara there states that it is preferable to tie the lulav with the hadassim and the aravos. If one does not tie the lulav with the other species, however, he has still fulfilled the mitzvah. Rav Aharon Yosef Weingarten in the Sefer HaYovel L’Chasam Sofer suggests an answer to resolve the question of Tosfos on Rashi. The Gemara in Gittin Daf 20 states that if one wrote the name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah without the proper sanctity, it is invalid. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because of the verse that states this is my G-d and I shall beautify Him. The Bais Yosef in Orach Chaim 651 rules that one must join the esrog with the lulav in order to fulfill the mitzvah. The Bais Yosef cites the Rikanti who claimed that this secret was revealed to him in a dream. On the first night of Sukkos, a Chasid by the name of Rabbi Yitzchak appeared to the Rikanti and the Rikanti noticed that Rabbi Yitzchak was writing the Name of Hashem, but Rabbi Yitzchak wrote the letter hey separate from the first three letters. The Rikanti told him that this was incorrect and Rabbi Yitzchak responded that this is what is being done in the community of the Rikanti. The Rikanti protested and wrote the name of Hashem correctly. The Rikanti did not comprehend the meaning of the dream until the following morning when he observed the people in his community holding the esrog distant from the lulav. The Rikanti recalled the Medrash in Parashas Emor that states that the four species allude to the Name of HaShem. Just like the Name of HaShem must be written with all the letters adjacent to each other, the four species must also all be held together. This, then, could be the possible explanation for the opinion of Rashi. A dry lulav will be invalid ex post facto because it is lacking in the mitzvah of this is my G-d and I shall beautify Him, as the mitzvah of lulav is akin to writing the Name of HaShem. This approach is also found in the Sefer Shaarei Orah from Rav Meir Bergman.

Read more!