Previous daf

1)

(a) Aba Shaul learns from "Arvei Nachal" the two Mitzvos of Aravah - the one that is part of the Mitzvah of Lulav, and the other (that pertained to Kohanim in the Beis Hamikdash only), the Mitzvah of going round the Mizbe'ach with the Aravah.

(b) The Tana Kama learns the *second* Mitzvah of Aravah - from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(c) The Tana Kama also learns from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' - the Mitzvah of 'Nisuch ha'Mayim' (which will be discussed later).

(d) 'Eser Neti'os' too, is 'Halachah ... ' - that if ten saplings are planted evenly in an area of a Beis Sa'ah (fifty Amos square), one is permitted to plow the entire area right up to Rosh Hashanah of the Shemitah year, in spite of the Mitzvah to add a little to the Shemitah. Otherwise, it would only be permitted to plow under and around each tree, and in the case of older trees, even that will be forbidden as from Rosh Chodesh Elul (min ha'Torah).

(a) A Tzaftzafah grows in the mountains.

(b) Rebbi Zeira learns from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kach al Mayim Rabim, Tzaftzafah Shemo" - that a Tzaftzafah is not of the same species as a Hadas, and is therefore not Kasher.

(c) Rebbi Avahu explains this Pasuk (which refers to Yisrael going astray - see Redak) to mean - that even though the Hadas (Kach) grew alongside water, it turned into a Tzaftzafah, which is no good.

(d) If the Pasuk was just telling us that a 'Tzaftzafah' is another name for a 'Kach' - then it should not have written the word "Tzaftzafah *Shemo*".

(a) The stem of an Aravah is red (brown), its leaf is elongated and the edge of its leaf is smooth; whereas the stem of a Tzaftzafah is white (pale green), its leaf round and the edge of its leaf serrated (with the edges all pointing upwards).

(b) A 'Chilfa Gilah' is a Kasher species of Aravah - whose notches all point upwards (like those of a Tzaftzafah). The same type of serrated edge however, will invalidate an ordinary Aravah.

(c) If the edges all face the middle, then even a Chilfa Gilah will be Pasul.

(d) Arvei Nachal (in the plural) teaches us that even a Chilfa Gilah is a Kasher Hadas. Otherwise, we would have thought that it is Pasul - because it has a secondary name.

(a) A 'Chilfesa' is a Tzaftzafah.

(b) It is obvious why we need to know that an Aravah and a Chilfesa switched their names. We also need to know whether they call ...

1. ... a Shofar 'Shofar' or 'Chatzotzeres' - in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
2. ... a large table 'Pesora' or 'Pesorta' (which originally meant a small table) - so that a person who purchased one should receive what he payed for.

(c) The difference between ...

1. ... Beis Hakosos and Huvlila concerns the Din of Tereifus - because the original Beis ha'Kosos (one of the stomachs of an animal) has a thick wall, and a needle that was found sticking into one side of it, but that had not pierced right through, did not render the animal Tereifah; whereas a needle that was found sticking into one side of the Huvlila rendered the animal a Tereifah, due to the fact that wall of the Huvlila is thin, and we suspect that the needle pierced right through. If the names were switched, then a needle that was found in the Beis ha'Kosos would render the animal Tereifah; whereas in the Huvlila, it would not.
2. ... Bavel and Bursif - concerns the bringing of a Get: someone who brought a Get from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael would have to state that the Get was both written and signed in his presence. This was not however necessary, if he brought it from Eretz Yisrael, either because (unlike other countries), it was easy to find witnesses to verify the Get, or because, they were experts in writing a Get 'Lishemah' in Eretz Yisrael (so that the two reasons for requiring that testimony did not apply). The same applied to Get that was brought from Bavel, but not from Bursif (where they were not B'nei Torah like they were in Bavel) and were therefore not experts in writing a Get, nor was it easy to find witnesses to verify the Get. Now that they switched their names, someone who brought a Get from Bavel would have to declare 'Befanai Nichtav u've'Fanei Nechtam', whereas from Bursif, he would not.

5)

(a) If Rebbi Yishmael requires one Lulav, one Esrog, *three Hadasim* and two Aravos - then on what basis does he permit *two* cut Hadasim? Either he should permit all three to be cut, or none?

(b) Rebbi Tarfon permits the Hadasim even if all three of them are cut.

(c) Rebbi Akiva requires one Lulav, one Esrog, one Hadas and one Aravah.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns one Esrog - from "*P'ri* Eitz Hadar", implying a single fruit, and he learns ...

1. ... one Lulav - from the fact that the Torah writes "*Kapos* Temarim" without a 'Vav' (as if it was '*Kapas* Temarim').
2. ... two Aravos - from "*Arvei* Nachal" (in the plural).
3. ... three Hadasim - from the three words "Anaf Eitz Avos".

(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns that the Esrog is not tied together with the other three species - from the fact that the Torah writes "P'ri Eitz Hadar, Kapos Temarim" (without a joining 'Vav'), whereas it continues "*va*'Anaf Eitz Avos, *ve*'Arvei Nachal joining the latter three together).

(c) We learn that all four species are required in order to perform the Mitzvah - from the word "u'Lekachtem", whose acronym is 'Lekichah Tamah' (a complete taking - with none of the species missing).

(a) We cannot reconcile the contradiction in Rebbi Yishmael (who first requires three Hadasim and then writes that two of them may be cut) - in fact, by permitting two cut Hadasim, he is retracting from his first statement, and now requires only *one* Hadas. That Hadas however, has to be complete, because he requires 'Hadar' even by the Hadas.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Tarfon (who requires three Hadasim, whose tops may be cut).

(c) That is why he warned the Hadas salesmen to lower the prices of good whole Hadasim - failing which he threatened them to publicly issue a ruling like Rebbi Tarfon.

(d) He did not warn them that he would rule like Rebbi Akiva (who requires only *one* whole Hadas) - because it was easier to obtain three cut Hadasim (like Rebbi Tarfon) than one whole one (like Rebbi Akiva). (Note: The Kashya appears strange. Why should he warn them that he would do like Rebbi Akiva, if he did not hold like him? See Tosfos DH 've'Lidrosh'.)

(a) An Esrog ...

1. ... of Orlah - is Pasul.
2. ... of Terumah Temei'ah - is Pasul, too.
3. ... of Terumah Tehorah - is Kasher, but one should refrain from using it.

(b) Beis Shamai forbids an Esrog of Demai and Beis Hillel, and Beis Hillel permits it.

(c) An Esrog of Ma'aser Sheini that is *inside* Yerushalayim is permitted, though one should refrain from using it; whereas one that is *outside*, is Pasul.

(a) An Esrog that is covered with spots, that has lost its Pitum (the stalk that grows at the pear-shaped end of the Esrog), is peeled or split - is Pasul.

(b) A hole invalidates the Esrog - only if some of the Esrog is missing.

(c) An Esrog that is slightly spotted or that has lost its Ukatz - is Kasher.

(d) A black Esrog - is Pasul (though this will be qualified later in the Sugya).

(a) Rebbi Meir validates an Esrog that is as green as a leek, and one that is as small as a nut. Rebbi Yehudah ...

1. ... declares an Esrog that is as green as a leek - Pasul.
2. ... invalidates an Esrog that is as small as a nut. According to him - the minimum size of an Esrog is that of an egg.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah validates a large Esrog, provided one can hold *two in one hand*. According to Rebbi Yossi - an Esrog is Kasher even if it requires *two hands* to hold it.