(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Sukah 33

SUKAH 33 (Lag b'Omer) - Dedicated by Rabbi Yisroel Shaw in memory of his grandfather, Mr. Bernie Slotin (Dov Ber ben Moshe Mordechai z'l), whose soul ascended to its eternal resting place thirty days ago.


(a) Question: How is it possible to have a Hadas which has lost most of its leaves yet the leaves still entirely cover the branch?
(b) Answer (Abaye): A Hadas Mitzra'ah often has even seven leaves in one place, such that even if four fall off, it still qualifies as Avos with the remaining three.
(c) (Abaye) This indicates that the Hadas Mitzra'ah is Kosher.
(d) Question: Is that not obvious (since it is a Hadas)!?
(e) Answer: We might have forbidden it since it has a qualifier in its name.
(f) Question: Then perhaps it should be invalidated!?
(g) Answer: The term Etz Avos allows for any type of Hadas.
(a) As long as three moist leaves remain, the Hadas is Kosher.
(b) (R. Chisda) They must be at the tip of the Hadas, not in the middle.
(a) (Ula b. Chinena) A Tamarah which sprouted from the end of the cut tip of a Hadas renders it Kosher.
(b) Question (R. Yirmiyah): What if the growth sprouted after YomTov had entered (such that its tip was cut when YomTov began)?
1. Would we say that the Hadas has been Nidcheh from its ability to perform the Mitzvah, or not?
2. Answer: This can be answered by learning the Mishnah regarding Kisui HaDam where if the wind covered, and subsequently uncovered the Dam, one still has the Mitzvah to cover it.
3. This seems to indicate Ein Dichui by Mitzvos.
4. Question: The very question of R. Yirmiyah was whether this case of Ein Dichui generalizes to all cases, or whether that only applies when it would be a Chumrah (requiring him to cover the Dam) but not when it would result in a Kulah (allowing the newly-sprouted Hadas)!
(c) Answer: Teiku, the matter is unresolved.
(d) Question: Could this be the Machlokes regarding a Hadas whose berries had been plucked on YomTov!?
1. R. Elazar b.R. Tzadok disallows and Chachamim allow this Hadas to be used.
2. We are assuming that the Minim do not need to be bound in order to be used; or, even if they must be bound, there is no restriction of Ta'aseh v'Lo Min HeAsui.
3. They would then be arguing over whether there is Dichui (R. Elazar, since it could not be used at the time it was bound with the other Minim) or not (Chachamim, that Mitzvah opportunities return).
(e) Answer: No, they may agree to Ein Dichui, but argue whether we derive from Sukah the restriction of Ta'aseh v'Lo Min HeAsui.
(f) Alternate Answer: They would certainly learn from Sukah, but they are arguing over whether the Minim must be bound together (the Chachamim hold that a Lulav is Kosher even if not bound, and R. Yehudah holds that it must be bound to be Kosher).
1. Question: What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
2. Answer: Gezeirah Shavah from the Eizov.
3. Question: How will the Chachamim learn this connection?
4. Answer: They do not have a tradition to learn this Gezeirah Shavah.
(g) Question: It seems that neither of these Tanaim would have taught that it is a Mitzvah to bind them, but it not Me'akev, yet we find this in the Beraisa?!
(h) Answer: The Beraisa is the Chachamim, and the require- ment is to beautify the Mitzvah, but is not Me'akev.
(a) (R. Chisda citing Rav with great reverence) This Pesul only applies if the berries are clustered in one part of the Hadas, but not if they are spread over two or three places on the Hadas.

(b) Question (Rava): But such spread-out berries makes the Hadas appear Menumar (leopard-like) and is Pasul!?
(c) Answer: Rav actually qualified the Mishnah by saying that the Pesul applies only if the berries are black, not if they are green.
(d) (R. Papa) Red berries are like black ones (we see by Dam Nidah that black is the extension of red).
(a) Question: The berries must have been plucked off the Hadas after they were bound to the Lulav (since if they were plucked prior, the permission to use them would be obvious), and the permission to use them should teach us that there is no Dichui for Mitzvos!?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah speaks of their being plucked after they were bound, but before YomTov began, and Hazmanah (as the binding is viewed as Hazmanah) is not a cutoff point for readiness regarding the Mitzvah.
(a) While the Mishnah prohibits plucking the berries on YomTov, it implies that were one to do so, the Hadas would be Kosher.
(b) Question: Upon analysis, we should be able to derive several Halachos from this implication.
1. If the berries blackened before YomTov then the permission to use such a Hadas (plucked on YomTov) should prove Ein Dichui!
2. If the berries blackened on YomTov (such that the Hadas was Kosher when YomTov entered, but became Pasul when the berries blackened, and is now restored to its Kashrus by the berries being plucked), then we should prove that Nireh v'Nidcheh may be Nireh once again!
(c) Answer: You may prove Ein Dichui, but not Nireh v'Nidcheh.
(a) (Chachamim) One may not pluck the berries on YomTov.
(b) (Citing R. Eliezer b.R. Shimon) One may do so.
(c) Question: But that is Mesaken on YomTov (rendering it fit for use)!?
(d) Answer (R. Ashi): He plucked the berries to eat, and R. Eliezer b.R. Shimon holds (like his father) that Davar Sh'Ein Miskaven is permitted.
(e) Question: But Abaye and Rava taught that R. Shimon never permitted a Davar Sh'Ein Miskaven when it is a P'sik Reisha!?
(f) Answer: We permit the plucking where he has other Hadasim with which to be Yotze the Mitzvah, (he is not rendering this one fit for use).
(a) If the binding unties on YomTov he must wind the binding around and tuck it in (not tying it at all).
(b) Question: Why not make a bow (which will last better and is not considered Keshirah)!?
(c) Answer: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah who views a bow as forbidden tying.
(d) Question: If the Beraisa is R. Yehudah (who also holds that the Torah obligates the binding of the Minim) then simply wrapping the binding around is insufficient!?
(e) Answer: The author of this Beraisa agrees with R. Yehudah on one point (forbidding a bow) but disagrees on another (whether the Torah obligates the binding).
(a) A stolen or dried out Aravah is Pesulah, as well as one from Asheirah, Ir HaNidachas, one whose tip was cut off, whose leaves (in the majority) have fallen, and the Tzaftzafa (whose leaves are round).
(b) If it is Kemushah (not fully dried out, or if a minority of its leaves have fallen off or it grows in a (Ba'al) field (not by a river), it is Kesheirah.
(a) This teaches that it must grow by a river.
(b) Alternately, its leaves are elongated, like a river (and must not be round, like the Tzaftzafa).
(c) (Tana Kama of another Beraisa) The plural use of Arvei that teaches the Aravos of a field (not by a river) may be used.
(d) (Aba Shaul) The plural refers to the Aravah of the Lulav and that of the Mikdash.
(e) Question: Whence will the Tana Kama learn the obligation of surrounding the Mizbeach with Aravah in the Mikdash?
(f) Answer: It is one of three Halachos l'Moshe MiSinai reported by R. Asi citing R. Yochanan.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,