Previous daf

1)

(a) The Gemara, searching for a reason why Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted taking the *Lulav* for seven days (to commemorate the Mitzvah in the Beis Hamikdash) and not the *'Aravah'*, suggests that maybe it is because we are Yotze with the 'Aravah' in the Lulav. This answer however, is unacceptable - because when one takes the Aravah in the Lulav, it is the Mitzvah of *Lulav* that one is fulfilling, and not that of Aravah.

(b) We try to remedy the objection - by suggesting that, after taking the Lulav, one takes it again (for the Mitzvah of Aravah), but that answer too, is rejected, on the grounds that nobody does that.

(c) Nor can we answer that it is because Lulav is d'Oraysa, whereas 'Aravah' is de'Rabbanan - because Aba Shaul learns Aravah from the Torah's use of "Arvei" in the plural; whereas according to the Rabbanan, it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d) We finally distinguish between the two Mitzvos, to explain why Rebbi Yochanan decreed seven days by Lulav, but not by Aravah - by pointing out that whereas Lulav has a source outside the Beis Hamikdash (i.e. on the *first* day), Aravah does not (so it is sufficient to decree one day only).

(a) Blemished Kohanim (like Yisraelim) were not normally permitted to enter the area between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Resh Lakish says that the blemished Kohanim tried to go round the Mizbe'ach with the Aravah, in order to perform the Mitzvah of Aravah (even though they were not really permitted between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach - as we just explained).

(c) Who said that the Mitzvah of Aravah constituted *taking*, Rebbi Yochanan objected - perhaps it constituted *placing on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach* (in which case blemished Kohanim would be able to perform the Mitzvah - on one of the sides of the Mizbe'ach which were not 'Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach'); and if the Mitzvah *was* taking it - then who said that blemished Kohanim were included in the Mitzvah in the first place? Maybe the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai was only said to Kohanim who were un-blemished?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan argues with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi as to whether 'Aravah' is a *Yesod* Nevi'im or a *Minhag* Nevi'im - Chagai Zecharyah and Malachi (who were members of the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah, who were responsible for many Takanos).

(b) 'Yesod Nevi'im' means - that the Nevi'im instituted it in the form of an obligation; 'Minhag Nevi'im' means - that they introduced it as a Minhag, in which case, no Berachah would be required.

(c) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds 'Aravah Yesod Nevi'im'.

(d) Elsewhere, Rebbi Yochanan quotes Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Baka'as as giving the source for 'Aravah' as Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which is what it really is - however, it became forgotten, and it was the Nevi'im who re- instituted it.

(a) Initially, we try to answer the previous question by pointing out that really 'Aravah' is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', but that it had become forgotten during Galus Bavel, and it was the Nevi'im who re-instituted it. This answer is unacceptable however - on the grounds of a statement made by Rebbi Yochanan himself; in it, he says that the Torah of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael is due to the Torah of the B'nei Bavel, who in spite of their having been in Galus, retained their learning.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Your's is really their's'!, he was referring to Rav Kahana who came to him after running away from Bavel, and whom Rebbi Yochanan found indispensable in clarifying many issues.

5)

(a) Rav Ami issued three rulings with regard to 'Aravah': 1. that it requires a Shiur; 2. that it must be taken on its own; 3. that one cannot be Yotze with the 'Aravah' in the Lulav. Having said that it must be taken on its own, he nevertheless needed to add that one cannot be Yotze with the 'Aravah' in the Lulav - because we may have thought that the reason that it must be taken on its own is in order to make it clear that he is taking it for the Mitzvah. But taking the Lulav once for the Mitzvah of Lulav and then again for that of Aravah should be O.K., since it is obvious that, second time, he is taking it for the Mitzvah of Aravah.

(b) Rav Chisda Amar Rav Yitzchak disagrees with Rav Ami - in his last point; according to *him*, one *can* be Yotze by taking the Lulav a second time.

(a) Rav Nachman gives the Shiur for 'Aravah' - as three twigs, each containing some fresh leaves.

(b) Rav Sheshes is more lenient. He says 'Even one leaf and one twig' - but is it not ridiculous to suggest that one takes one leaf separately and one twig separately?

(c) What he really meant was one twig containing one leaf (though the Minhag is to take five long twigs containing many fresh leaves).

(a) Ayvu and Chizkiyah brought an 'Aravah' to their grandfather Rav. He did with it exactly the same as Ayvu, Rav's father said he saw Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok do - both of them took it and shook it (according to others, 'Chavit' means 'banged', which is our Minhag), but did not recite a Berachah, indicating that they held 'Aravah *Minhag* Nevi'im'.

(b) A man who owned villages, vineyards and olive-groves came before Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in the Shemitah-year - to discover whether his custom of paying his workers for their work of digging in his vineyards, with the olives from his olive-groves was correct. He was told that it is forbidden to pay one's workers with Shemitah, which is public property.

(c) After he left (before even asking what he should do), Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok commented that, in all the forty years that he had resided in that country, he had never seen a man who was so meticulous in his deeds (he was referring to the man's running out before even asking what to do - in order first of all to stop the workers from eating any more olives, which, he had just discovered, was an act of theft).

(d) Upon his return, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok instructed him to declare the olives Hefker, and to pay the workers a nominal fee from his own pocket.

(a) We learn from the word ...

1. ... "Tishmetenah" - that digging under a tree is forbidden.
2. ... "u'Netashtah" - that removing stones from one's field (in order to render the field plowable) is forbidden.

(b) Nevertheless, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok (in the previous question) permitted digging in the vineyards - because what he *permitted* was to dig in order to fill in the cracks which left the roots of the trees exposed (and whose purpose was to *prevent the tree from drying up*); whereas what the Torah forbids is digging in order to *soften the earth*, and which is intended to *it*.

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok also forbade walking more than three Parsah (just under three and a half hours walking distance) on Erev Shabbos. In the first Lashon, Rav Kahana restricts this stringency to someone who is homeward bound - who will be cross (and thereby disturb the Shabbos atmosphere) when he discovers that they did not prepare sufficient food for him; but not if he is on his outward journey - where he does not rely on his hosts in the first place, and he will make do with whatever he has.

(b) According to the second Lashon, Chazal are concerned that he should not go hungry on Shabbos. Consequently - they even forbid traveling more than three Parsah on his *homeward* journey, where any food in his house belongs to him, and certainly on the outward one, where he is less likely to find any food upon his arrival.

(c) Rav Kahana once arrived home unexpectedly, and he found nothing at all to eat, not even a dish of little fish fried in flour.

(a) The Beraisa expert learned that, in our Mishnah - they would deposit their Lulavim on the *roof* of the covered-seating area ('al Gag ha'Itztava'). But why on earth would they place the Lulavim on the roof of the Itztava, where they would be exposed to the sun and become dry? The text must therefore read, not 'al *Gag*, but 'al *Gav* ha'Itztava', meaning on the seats, inside the shelters,

(b) Rachbah quoted Rav Yehudah as saying - 'Har ha'Bayis Satav Kaful Hayah, Satav Lifnim mi'Satav', meaning that the Har ha'Bayis contained a double row of these shelters, one within the other.