(a)Why is a Hadas Meitzra'ah Kasher? Perhaps the Torah insists on a plain Hadas (without a secondary name - like it does by the hyssop e.g. of the Parah Adumah)?
(b)What does the Beraisa say about a Hadas there where the majority of leaves have turned dry? What is the minimum number of fresh leaves that must remain to be Kasher?
(c)How does Rav Chisda qualify this ruling?
1)
(a)A Hadas Meitzra'ah is Kasher, in spite of its secondary name - because the Torah does not call it a Hadas, but an 'Anaf Etz Avos' (which incorporates all types of trees that fit that description, irrespective of what they are called).
(b)The Beraisa rules that the majority of leaves of a Hadas have turned dry, it will remain Kasher - provided one set of three fresh leaves remains.
(c)Rav Chisda qualifies this ruling - by requiring the dry leaves to be the top three.
2)
(a)Under what condition does the Beraisa cited by Ula bar Chinena declare Kasher a Hadas whose top has been severed?
(b)With regard to Korbanos, we apply the principle of Dichuy. What is 'Dichuy'?
(c)What She'eilah does the Gemara ask with regard to a Hadas that grows a shoot where the top has been severed?
(d)Is this a case of 'Dichuy Me'ikara' or 'Nir'eh v'Nidcheh'?
2)
(a)The Beraisa cited by Ula bar Chinena declares Kasher a Hadas whose top has been severed - if a shoot grows at the point where it was severed.
(b)With regard to Korbanos, we apply the principle of 'Dichuy' rejected) - 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 became fit again.
(c)The Gemara asks whether a Hadas is Kasher if its top was severed on Erev Yom-Tov, and then it grows a shoot on Yom-Tov after it has been bound together with the Lulav - does the concept of 'Dichuy' apply to Mitzvos like it applies to Korbanos.
(d)This is a case of 'Dichuy Me'ikara' - since, when Yom-Tov entered, it was unfit (at this point, we assume that there is no difference between Dichuy Me'ikara and Nir'eh v'Nidchah, where the object was initially fit and then became rejected [see also Tosfos DH 'Niktam').
3)
(a)If the wind covered the blood of a bird or a beast that had been Shechted, is one subsequently Chayav to cover it if it subsequently became uncovered?
(b)What does Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar R. Yochanan comment on this?
(c)What does Rav Papa now extrapolate from the fact that one is Chayav should it become uncovered?
(d)Why can we not prove conclusively from Rav Papa that 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'?
3)
(a)If the wind covered the blood of a bird or a beast that had been Shechted - one is not obligated to cover it unless it subsequently became uncovered again.
(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar R. Yochanan comments on this - that as long as the blood has not become uncovered, one is not obligated to uncover it and re-cover it (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah).
(c)From the fact that one becomes Chayav to cover it should it become uncovered, Rav Papa now extrapolates - that 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'.
(d)We cannot prove conclusively from Rav Papa that 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos' - because it may well be that Rav Papa himself is really in doubt, and he ruled only ruled 'Ein Dichuy' l'Chumra (to obligate covering the blood); whereas in our case, where 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos' creates a Kula (to be able to use the Hadas on which the berry grew, on Yom-Tov), perhaps he would say 'Yesh Dichuy ... (l'Chumra)'.
4)
(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok rules that if one removes the excessive berries from the Hadas on Yom-Tov, the Hadas remains Pasul. What do the Chachamim say?
(b)There are three possible ways of explaining their Machlokes. How do we initially interpret it in light of the previous She'eilah?
(c)According to this explanation, how will both Tana'im then hold with regard to ...
1. ... 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'?
2. ... learning Lulav from Sukah with regard to 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy'?
(d)According to the last explanation, are we talking about 'Dichuy Me'ikara' or Nir'eh v'Nidcheh'?
4)
(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok rules that if one removes 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 disqualifies the Hadas because he holds 'Yesh Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'; whereas the Rabanan validate it because in their opinion, 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'.
(c)According to this explanation, both Tana'im will either hold that ...
1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' (in which case it does not require an act), or even if they hold ' ... Tzarich Eged' ...
2. ... they do not learn 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' by Lulav from Sukah (which must be Kasher when it is made).
(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.
5)
(a)If the Tana holds that a Lulav requires binding, then he says that the berries were removed specifically on Yom-Tov (even though it is not relevant), because that is most likely what happened. Why does he need to say it if he holds that it does not?
(b)Based on what we just learned, what two other rulings must Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok hold?
(c)And what are the two possible ways of explaining the Rabanan?
(d)What will they then both hold with regard to 'Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'?
5)
(a)If the Tana holds that a Lulav requires binding, then he says that the berries were removed specifically on Yom-Tov (even though it is not relevant), because that is most likely what happened. If he holds that it does not, then he needs to say it - because otherwise it would not be called an object of Mitzvah, in which case it would not be subject to Dichuy.
(b)Based on what we just learned - Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok will hold a. that 'Lulav Tzarich Eged' and b. that we learn 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' from Sukah ...
(c)... whereas the Rabanan will hold either that 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' (in which case, the Lulav is not even Dachuy), or that 'Lulav Tzarich Eged', but they do not learn the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' by Lulav from Sukah, so even though the Lulav has been bound (together with the Hadasim [with the berries] and the Aravos), it does not become Pasul when he removes them.
(d)Both Tana'im will then agree that 'Ein Dichuy Etzel Mitzvos'.
6)
(a)According to the middle interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok and the Chachamim ('Lulav Tzarich Eged'), we equate their Machlokes with another Machlokes Tana'im. Which other Tana holds 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'?
(b)He learns this Halachah from a Gezeirah Shavah "Lekichah" "Lekichah". In which connection is the second "Lekichah" written?
(c)On what grounds do the Rabanan then disagree with Rebbi Yehudah?
(d)What is the problem with the Beraisa which declares Igud a Mitzvah, but which is Kasher b'Di'eved? Then on what grounds do they say 'Mitzvah l'Ogdo'?
(e)We resolve the problem by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabanan. On what basis do they then require the Lulav to be bound?
6)
(a)According to the middle interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok and the Chachamim ('Lulav Tzarich Eged'), we equate their Machlokes with another Machlokes Tana'im - where Rebbi Yehudah too, holds 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'.
(b)He learns this Halachah from a Gezeirah Shavah "Lekichah" "Lekichah" - from the Agudas Ezov in Parshas Bo (in connection with Pesach Mitzrayim).
(c)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, in that - they do not hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
(d)The problem with the Beraisa which declares Igud a Mitzvah, but which is Kasher b'Di'eved is - who is the author, since Rebbi Yehudah requires Igud even b'Di'eved, whereas the Rabanan do not require it even l'Chatchilah.
(e)We resolve the problem by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabanan - who learn from "Zeh Keili v'Anveihu" that, l'Chatchilah, one should enhance a Mitzvah by performing it beautifully.
7)
(a)According to the initial version of Rav Chisda quoting Rabeinu ha'Gadol, the Pesul of more berries than leaves does not apply when they are in two or three locations. Who is Rabeinu ha'Gadol?
(b)What is Rava's objection to Rav Chisda's statement?
(c)So we conclude that, in fact, Rav makes no distinction between one location and a number of locations. What leniency (regarding the excessive berries on a Hadas) does Rav Chisda quote in his name?
(d)Red berries will invalidate the Hadas too. Why is that? What is the source for this principle?
7)
(a)According to the initial version of Rav Chisda quoting Rabeinu ha'Gadol, the Pesul of more berries than leaves does not apply when they are in two or three locations. Rabeinu ha'Gadol - (in Bavel) refers to Rav.
(b)Rava objects to Rav Chisda's statement - in 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 blotched Hadas 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) - and what Rav Chisda really said in his name was - that it is only black berries that render the Hadas Pasul, but not green ones, because, since they are the same color as the leaves, they are considered the same species.
(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'. Consequently, here too, red berries belong to the species of black berries, which they eventually become, as they become more dry.
33b----------------------------------------33b
8)
(a)Our Mishnah validates the Hadas, if the number of berries is reduced to a minority. Why is this too obvious to mention, assuming the Mishnah be speaking if this was done before binding the Lulav?
(b)What do we try to prove, should it then be speaking after binding it?
(c)Why in fact, is there no proof from there?
(d)So what is the Chidush of the Mishnah?
8)
(a)If our Mishnah validates the Hadas when the number of berries is reduced to a minority before binding, then - a. it is not a case of 'Ta'aseh (bi'Pesul) v'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 binding. That being the case, it is a case of 'Dichuy Me'ikara' - and we have a proof that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Lo Havi Dichuy' (in which case this Tana does not learn the Pesul of 'Ta'aseh v'Lo min he'Asuy' from Sukah).
(c)This proof however, is based on the assumption that the binding the Hadas turns it into an object of Mitzvah, making it subject to Dichuy). But this is not the case - in fact binding the Lulav is no more than a preparation, in which case, 'Dichuy' will not apply (until the entry of Yom-Tov).
(d)And it is just as likely that the Mishnah is coming to teach us that the binding of the Lulav is no more than a preparation, and not a Mitzvah.
9)
(a)What do we infer from the Tana of our Mishnah, who forbids reducing the berries on Yom-Tov?
(b)On the presumption that the berries turned black on Yom-Tov, what do we try to learn from there?
(c)How do we refute this proof?
(d)What is the basis for this distinction? What makes Nir'eh v'Nidcheh more stringent than Dichuy Me'ikara?
9)
(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) - that the Hadas is in fact, Kasher.
(b)On the assumption that the berries turned black on Yom-Tov, we try to learn from there that 'Nir'eh v'Nidcheh, Chozer v'Nir'eh' (meaning that even if it was fit when Yom-Tov came in and then became unfit, it can become fit again too).
(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 v'Nidcheh').
(d)The basis for this distinction is - the fact that whereas Nir'eh v'Nidcheh is truly a case of rejection, Dichuy Me'ikara is more like a case of premature, which obviously becomes fit when its time arrives.
10)
(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah. In his opinion, it is permitted to reduce the number of berries on Yom-Tov. How do we initially repudiate the Kashya that it should be forbidden because of Mesaken Mana? With whose opinion does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon concur?
(b)We query this however, from a statement of Abaye and Rava. How do Abaye and Rava qualify Rebbi Shimon's principle?
(c)How do we establish the case to eliminate the problem of Pesik Reishei?
10)
(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 concurs with the opinion of his father, who says 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar'.
(b)We query this however, from a statement of Abaye and Rava, who qualify Rebbi Shimon's principle - by establishing it in a case where it is not Pesik Reishei (inevitable), whereas this case is!
(c)To eliminate the problem of Pesik Reishei, we establish the case - where he already had sufficient Hadasim, in which case, this is not Tikun Mana to be begin with (see Tosfos DH 'Modeh Rebbi Shimon ... ').
11)
(a)The Beraisa, discussing a case where the Igud came undone, requires one to tie it like a bundle of vegetables. What does the Tana mean by that?
(b)What problem do we have with ...
1. ... that? What would be a better way of doing it?
2. .. the answer which establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah, who considers a bow to be knot?
(c)How do we solve the problem? What do we mean when we say that the Tana holds like him in one point but not in the other?
11)
(a)The Beraisa, discussing a case where the Igud came undone, requires one to tie it like a bundle of vegetables - which one ties by winding something it before sticking the end in to tighten it.
(b)The problem with ...
1. ... that - surely a bow would be preferable to that!?
2. ... the answer, which establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah, who considers a bow to be knot is - that Rebbi Yehudah also requires tying the bundle with a knot, in which case he would lose on the Mitzvah altogether (since there is no Heter to tie a either a knot or a bow according to him).
(c)We solve the problem, by answering that the Tana of the Beraisa - holds like him in one point (with regard to the Din of a bow on Shabbos and Yom-Tov), but not like him in the other (regarding the obligation to bind the three species).
12)
(a)The Mishnah lists most of the Pesulim of the Lulav with regard to the Aravah. The first exception is that of a Tzaftzafah, which is unique to an Aravah. What is a 'Tzaftzafah'?
(b)What does the Tana say about an Aravah Pasul that is withered, missing some of its leaves or if it grew in a field that is watered manually?
(c)Besides that the Aravah should grow by a brook, what does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Arvei Nachal"?
(d)And what does he learn from the Torah's use of the plural in "Arvei Nachal"?
12)
(a)The Mishnah lists most of the Pesulim of the Lulav with regard to the Aravah. The first exception is that of a Tzaftzafah - a type of Aravah with round leaves, which is unique to an Aravah.
(b)The Tana rules that an Aravah Pasul that is withered, missing some of its leaves or if it grew in a field that is watered manually - is Kasher.
(c)Besides that the Aravah should grow by a brook, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Emor "v'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 implies that they must grow by a brook) Aravos are Kasher even if they grew in a field that was watered manually or on a mountain, where there is no brook.
