POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 31
1) A STOLEN SUKAH
(a) (R. Eliezer) A stolen Sukah and one made in Reshus
HaRabim are Pesulim.
2) TAKANAS HASHAVIM
(b) (Chachamim) They are Kesheirim.
(c) (R. Nachman) Their dispute (in a case where Reuven
forced Shimon out of his Sukah) is over whether a
person may be Yotze with another person's Sukah
(Chachamim) or not (R. Eliezer).
1. The position of R. Eliezer.
(d) Question: What is the source for permitting the Sukah
with stolen S'chach?
i. If land can be stolen, then this is a stolen
Sukah (which R. Eliezer on 27b has taught is
2. The position of Chachamim.
ii. If land cannot be stolen then this is as
borrowed, and, again, is Pesulah.
i. Land cannot be stolen, so this Sukah is still
the property of its original owner.
3. If wood was stolen and used for S'chach, the thief
must pay for the wood (we do not obligate the
thief to return the wood itself and the Sukah is
ii. One may be Yotze with a borrowed Sukah.
(e) Answer: Because the Mishnah listed the stolen Sukah
together with one built in Reshus HaRabim, to prohibit
a Sukah which is not on his property (but stolen wood,
where the property is his, does not impede his being
(f) In the reported incident, R. Nachman insisted (over her
intense cries) that the woman was entitled only to the
cost of the stolen S'chach, and not to the S'chach
itself (and the Sukah is Kesheirah).
(a) (Ravina) The protection given to a thief in order to
encourage him to repent is extended to the beam of a
3) HADAR BY THE LULAV
(b) Question: Surely allowing him to leave the beam in
place is not more newsworthy than the S'chach which R.
Nachman just permitted!?
(c) Answer: We might not have made the extension from
S'chach (which is readily available) to a beam (which
is hard to find, and we might have obligated the thief
to dismantle his Sukah to return it).
(d) After Sukos, the thief must return the beam, since this
temporary structure does not engender great expense in
(e) If, however, he cemented the beam into the ground then,
again, he is obligated in its value, not in the beam.
(a) (Tana Kama) A dried out Lulav is Pasul.
4) HADAR BY THE ESROG
(b) (R. Yehudah) It is Kosher.
(c) (Rava) While they argue whether a Lulav needs Hadar as
does an Esrog, they agree that an Esrog must be Hadar.
(d) Question: But we see in the Mishnah, where R. Yehudah
requires that he tie the loose ends of the Lulav leaves
together that he *does* demand Hadar for an Esrog!?
(e) Answer: The reason for that requirement is to create a
singular leaf, as alluded to in the Pasuk.
(f) Question: But we find that R. Yehudah requires that the
Minim be bound together with its own species, surely
for the sake of Hadar!?
(g) Answer: Its own species is not required (as taught by
Rava) but R. Yehudah's requirement stems from the
obligation to bind the Lulav, thus making the binding a
potential fifth species.
(a) Question: We see that R. Yehudah does not require the
Esrog to be Hadar!?
1. While he does not allow fewer nor more species
other than the four specified, and no other
substitute fruits in the event that no Esrog is
2. Somewhat dried (Kemushin) Minim are Kosher, but
dried out ones are not.
3. R. Yehudah allows one which is dried out (not
Hadar) in that case, and cites an incident to
support his ruling (where fathers passed their
Lulavim on to their sons).
5) LULAV FROM AN ASHEIRAH IS PASUL
4. His proof is rejected since we cannot bring a
proof from times of need.
(b) Question: But he said that a dried Esrog is Kosher!?
(c) Answer: He was referring to a dried Lulav (as indicated
by the cited incident which spoke of a Lulav).
(d) Question: Surely it is obvious that one may not add to
the Minim (Bal Tosif)!?
(e) Answer: We might have permitted another Min which was
not bound together with the other three, given that the
binding is obligatory, this other Min might be viewed
as entirely separate.
(f) Question: Is it not obvious that he may not substitute
other fruits for the Esrog!?
(g) Answer: We might have permitted its inclusion so that
the concept of Esrog would not be forgotten (but we
forbid this due to our concern that the proper law
might then become forgotten).
(h) Question (on Rava who asserts that R. Yehudah requires
an Esrog to be Hadar): But we see in the Beraisa that
R. Yehudah permits an old Esrog!?
(i) Answer: This indeed refutes Rava.
(j) Question: But we see that R. Yehudah forbids an
intensely green Esrog, surely because it is not Hadar!?
(k) Answer: It is unfinished in its unripe state, and hence
not fit for use (not due to Hadar).
(l) Question: But we see that R. Yehudah requires that it
be KeBeitzah in size, surely for Hadar!?
(m) Answer: It is, again, invalid owing to its unfinished
(n) Question: But we see that R. Yehudah restricts the size
of a large Esrog (to half the size of a person's
capacity to hold), surely because the smaller one is
(o) Answer: The large one is invalid because of the
logistics involved in handling the Lulav and Esrog (and
safely switching hands with them) not due to Hadar.
(p) Question: Then why, according to R. Yehudah, does the
Pasuk use the word Hadar when speaking of the Esrog!?
(q) Answer: It refers to a fruit which resides (haDar) on
the tree from year to year (an ability of an Esrog).
(a) Question: But Rava allows (b'di'Eved) a Lulav from
(b) Answer: The Mishnah is speaking of a tree which must be
burned, which reduces its size, Halachically, to zero
(as indicated by the juxtaposition of Asheirah in the
Mishnah to the case of the Ir HaNidachas, which we know
must be destroyed).