prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(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?
(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'?
(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'?
(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'?
(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'?
(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?
(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?
(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?
(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?
(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?
(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?
(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"?