Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates a stolen Sukah and one that is built in the street - because that too, is considered stolen (since he stole the space that belongs to the public).

(b) The Rabbanan disagree, because in their opinion - land cannot be stolen, and one *can* fulfill one's obligation with someone else's Sukah.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates them - because he Darshens "Ta'aseh Lecha" from your own - not borrowed and not stolen. Consequently, either he holds that land *can* be stolen, in which case, it is Pasul because it is stolen, or he holds that it *cannot*, and it is Pasul because it is borrowed.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer really holds that land *can* be stolen; the reason that Rav Nachman suggests the alternative - is because had he not done so, we would have thought that Rebbi Eliezer concedes that one *can* be Yotze in a *borrowed* Sukah (which is not the case, as we have already learned above in Perek ha'Yashen).

(a) We establish the dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan when someone throws the owner out of his Sukah and sits in it - because then it is similar to putting up a Sukah in the Reshus ha'Rabim (which is mentioned together with it) seeing as both are domains which do not belong to them.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that a stolen Sukah is Kasher if the thief stole wood and constructed a Sukah with it - either because he then acquires it with Shinuy Ma'aseh or Shinuy Hashem, or because (despite the fact that the wood is still available) Chazal decreed that one may retain the wood, and only needs to pay money, in order not to discourage the thief from repenting and paying for his theft (known as 'Takanas ha'Shavin' or 'Takanas Marish') by forcing him to demolish his house in order to return the wood that he stole.

(c) And the Rabbanan agree that if someone stole a ready-made Sukah on a wagon or on a ship, that the Sukah is Pasul - because 'Takanas ha'Shavin' only applies when he built the wood into his house (involving a lot of work, which would now have to be re-done, if he had to remove it and return it), but not here, where he stole the complete Sukah.

(d) When the Resh Galusa's servants stole that woman's wood, and Rav Nachman ruled that she was only entitled to receive payment for the stolen goods, but had no claim on the wood itself - she became very agitated. She asked him how the Rabbanan can simply ignore the cries of a woman whose father (Avraham) had three hundred and eighteen slaves. Rav Nachman referred to her as a noisy woman.

(a) There is reason to believe that 'Takanas Marish' (or 'ha'Shavin') should not apply to a large beam of wood - because it is valuable, and (unlike small pieces of wood, which one can always obtain) is hard for the owner to replace.

(b) 'Takanas Marish' applies by a Sukah even after the termination of Sukos - if the beam was permanently fixed to the Sukah.

(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana Kama invalidates a dry Lulav, whereas Rebbi Yehudah validates it. The Rabbanan compare Lulav to Esrog (where the Torah explicitly requires "Hadar"), explains Rava; Rebbi Yehudah does not, because, in his opinion, a Hekesh (like a Gezeirah-Shavah) must be transmitted from one's Rebbes (as is the case by all of the thirteen principles except for a Kal va'Chomer). Note: This is not the generally- accepted approach - see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yehudah'.

(b) Even though Rebbi Yehudah does not require 'Hadar' by a Lulav, he nevertheless rules ...

1. ... in our Mishnah, that a Lulav whose leaves have come away from the spine must be tied - because of the Pasuk "Kapos Temarim" (which means, according to him, that loose leaves must be tied).
2. ... in a Mishnah later, that the Lulav must be tied together with the Hadasim and the Aravos - because he learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "u'Lekachtem" "u'Lekachtem" from the Agudas Ezov of the Korban Pesach.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah's reason there, cannot possibly be due to 'Hadar' - because, in Rava's opinion, he even permits tying it with parts of the date- palm, that will not enhance the looks of the Lulav at all.

(d) On the other hand, he forbids tying them with any other species - because, seeing as Rebbi Yehudah requires tying the Lulav, tying it with another species will entail 'Bal Tosif' (adding to the four species), which is forbidden.

(a) Someone who does not have an Esrog - may not use a quince or a pomegranate in its place.

(b) An Esrog is ...

1. ... Kasher if it is withered.
2. ... but not if it is dry.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah proves from the people who used to bequeath their Lulavin to their grandchildren - that a dry Lulav is Kasher.

(b) We initially thought that Rebbi Yehudah also referred to a dry *Esrog* - from which we see that Rebbi Yehudah does *not* require Hadar by an Esrog either (a Kashya on Rava, who said earlier that he *does*).

(c) According to Rava - Rebbi Yehudah is *really* referring to a dry *Lulav*, but not to an *Esrog*.

7)

(a) The opening words of the Beraisa that we just quoted are that just as it is forbidden to *detract* from the four species, so too, is it forbidden to *add* to them - because we might otherwise have thought that since Rebbi Yehudah requires tying the species together, it would be permitted to add other species, as long as one does not bind them together with the other three (The Beraisa now teaches us that, although adding another species in this way does not detract from the Mitzvah, it is nevertheless forbidden, because of 'Bal Tosif' - see Tosfos DH 'Ho'il').

(b) It is also not so obvious that one cannot use a quince or a pomegranate in lieu of an Esrog - because we might have permitted this so as not to forget the Mitzvah of Lulav.

(c) In fact, it is forbidden - because one might come to believe that a quince or a pomegranate are viable alternatives to an Esrog, and will go on to permit them Lechatchilah in future years.

(a) We finally prove from the Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah specifically permits an old Esrog - that Rebbi Yehudah does not require Hadar by an Esrog either (to which Rava has no answer).

(b) Even though Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of 'Hadar' even by an Esrog, he nevertheless invalidates an Esrog that is ...

1. ... as green as leek - because the fruit is not yet completed.
2. ... smaller than an egg - for the same reason.
3. ... too large for a person to hold two of them in one hand - because, should the Esrog be larger than that, one might, after receiving the Lulav and Esrog from one's friend, attempt to change the Lulav to the right hand and the Esrog to the left, and due to its size, drop the Esrog.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi - the Esrog may even be so large that one can only hold it with two hands.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah interprets "Hadar" which the Torah writes by Esrog - to mean that it remains on the tree the whole year (from which we derive that the "P'ri Eitz Hadar" of the four species is an Esrog (since it is the only fruit to remain on the tree for so long).

(a) Rava validates a Lulav of Avodah-Zarah - which means either a Lulav that was used to sweep in front of an idol, or one that they passed in front of it or threw in front of it (assuming that that was the way it was worshipped).

(b) It is not forbidden to use such an Esrog (due to it being 'Asur be'Hana'ah') - because of the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (the purpose of a Mitzvah is to serve Hashem, and not to derive physical benefit from it).

(c) Our Mishnah, which invalidates a Lulav from an Asheirah - is speaking about an Asheirah that existed in Eretz Yisrael at the time when Yisrael entered it, and which the Torah ordered to be burned. Since it had to be burned, it was as if it was already burned, and therefore had no Shiur. Rava on the other hand, is speaking about ordinary idolatry, which does not need to be burned, and which is therefore Kasher. The proof for this is that the Lulav of Asheirah is mentioned together with that of an Ir ha'Nidachas, which has to be burned.