Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CUT OFF TOP OF THE LULAV - NIKTAM ROSHO

(a) (R. Huna) While if the top is cut off it is Pasul, it they are slit it is not.
(b) Question: But the Beraisa invalidates slit (together with bowing, thorny, bent like a sickle and hardened [but allows nearly hardened]) leaves of the Lulav!?
(c) Answer (R. Papa): The Pesul is Hemnik, where the slit in the top actually creates a 'V' or quill effect.

(a) (Rava) This Pesul refers to a bend forward, not back to its spine (which is Kosher) the way it grows.
(b) R. Nachman considers bent to the side like bent forward, others cite him saying it is like backward.
(c) (Rava) If all the leaves are to one side of the spine it is blemished and Pasul.

(a) (R. Papa) Nifretzu is where, like a sweep broom, the severed leaves are gathered and tied at their base to the spine of the Lulav; while Nifredu is where the base is still attached to the spine but the ends have fanned out from the Lulav.
(b) Question (R. Papa): What is the Halachah if the center leaves (the Tiyomes, or extension of the spine) split from one another.
(c) Answer: R. Yehoshua b. Levi taught that if the Tiyomes were removed the Lulav is Pasul, which, presumably, would extend to our Nechlakah case.
(d) Not necessarily, since removal of the leaves creates Chaser, a greater alteration than Nechlakah.
(e) Alternate rendition of R. Yehoshua b. Levi: Nechlakah is like the removal of the Tiyomes and it is Pasul.

(a) R. Yehudah learns this from Kafus which implies that if it were separated one must bind it.

(a) Question (Ravina of R. Ashi): Perhaps it is the Charusa (a Lulav after the hardening of its spine and leaves)?
(b) Answer: It cannot be bound (Kafos) due to it hardness.
(c) Question: Perhaps it is the Ufsa (bark without leaves)?
(d) Answer: It must have a bindable quality, not fixed as bound.
(e) Question: Perhaps it is the Kufra (not as thick as the Charusa and still bindable)?
(f) Answer (Abaye): The pleasant Torah would not have us use that which scratches the hands.
(g) Question (Rava Tosfa'ah of Ravina): Perhaps it is two Machbedim (the fan shaped twig holding the clusters of dates)?
(h) Answer: The word Kafos is written as though singular.
(i) Question: Then take just one?
(j) Answer: That is called a Kaf (and Kafos refers to the binding).

(a) (Abaye) This Lulav is Pasul if the lower leaf does not reach the base of the leaf above it.
(b) This is supported by the Beraisa which invalidates the Tzinei Har HaBarzel, which must refer to one which Abaye would disqualify (or else it would contradict our Mishnah).

(c) Alternately, the above discussion was started with the apparent contradiction, and Abaye's qualification is its resolution.
(d) These two trees are located in Gei Ben Hinom near Yerushalayim, at the entrance to Gehinom.

(a) (R. Yehudah citing Shmuel) The Shiur of the Hadas and Aravah is three Tefachim and the Lulav must be four, to extend a Tefach above the Hadasim and Aravos.
(b) (R. Parnach citing R. Yochanan) The *spine* of the Lulav must extend that Tefach.
(c) Question: But the Mishnah only requires three Tefachim?
(d) Answer: The Mishnah means three Tefachim and that which is needed to shake it, which is the Machlokes above.
(e) Question: The Beraisa requires the Lulav to be four Tefachim (with the Hadas and Aravah being three), which would seem to be with its leaves (like Shmuel)!?
(f) Answer: No, it means four Tefachim without the leaves.

1. In the above cited Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the Hadas to be three and R. Tarfon says that it is an Amah of five Tefachim.
2. Question (Rava): Who can find a leaf-covered Hadas of three Tefachim, to say nothing of *five*!?
3. Answer (R. Dimi): R. Tarfon meant that the three Tefachim are measured by dividing a six-Tefach Amah by five parts, only adding a bit to the Shiur of the Tana Kama.

(g) Question: But Shmuel is here cited as holding that the Hadas must be three, yet he is cited as holding like R. Tarfon whose Shiur is three and three-fifths!?
(h) Answer: Shmuel was being approximate when he said three.
(i) Question: But we only attribute imprecision to the statement when it is more stringent!?
(j) Answer (Ravin): R. Tarfon meant to be more lenient and to use a five-Tefach Amah and divide it by six, resulting in a two and one-half Tefach Hadas.
(k) Question: But Shmuel is still inconsistent!?
(l) Answer: This inconsistency can be attributed to his imprecision, which is a Chumrah.

(a) The Pesulim include a Hadas which is stolen, dried out, from an Asheirah or Ir HaNidachas, a clipped top, fallen leaves or whose berries exceed its leaves.
(b) If the excess berries are removed it is Kosher, but this repair may not be done on YomTov.

(a) A branch whose leaves cover it, the Hadas.
(b) Question: Perhaps it is the olive tree?
(c) Answer: It is not Avos, with the leaves laying upon one another.
(d) Question: Perhaps it is the Dulva?
(e) Answer: Its leaves to not cover the entire branch.
(f) Question: Perhaps it is the Hirdof?
(g) Answer (Abaye): The pleasant Torah would not have us use that which scratches the hands.
(h) Answer (Rava): A poisonous plant is inconsistent with 'the love of Truth and Peace.'
(i) (Tana Kama) That which is woven (one leaf upon the other) like a chain, that is the Hadas.
(j) (R. Eliezer b. Yakov) It is the tree whose branch and fruit (or leaves) is identical, namely, the Hadas.

(a) It was taught that Avos demands that it be Meshulash.
(b) Question: What qualifies as Avos?
(c) Answer (R. Yehudah): Three leaves from one point.
(d) Answer (R. Kehana): Two from one point and one from a point below resting on the other two also qualifies.
(e) Out of respect for his Rebbi, R. Acha would seek Hadasim like R. Kehana said.
(f) (Mar b. Ameimar) My father called such a Hadas a Shoteh (since it seemed to lack clear direction).