ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 31
(a) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates a stolen Sukah and one that is built in the
street - because that too, is considered stolen (since he stole the space
that belongs to the public).
(b) The Rabbanan disagree, because in their opinion - land cannot be stolen,
and one *can* fulfill one's obligation with someone else's Sukah.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates them - because he Darshens "Ta'aseh Lecha"
from your own - not borrowed and not stolen. Consequently, either he holds
that land *can* be stolen, in which case, it is Pasul because it is stolen,
or he holds that it *cannot*, and it is Pasul because it is borrowed.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer really holds that land *can* be stolen; the reason that
Rav Nachman suggests the alternative - is because had he not done so, we
would have thought that Rebbi Eliezer concedes that one *can* be Yotze in a
*borrowed* Sukah (which is not the case, as we have already learned above in
(a) We establish the dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan when
someone throws the owner out of his Sukah and sits in it - because then it
is similar to putting up a Sukah in the Reshus ha'Rabim (which is mentioned
together with it) seeing as both are domains which do not belong to them.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that a stolen Sukah is Kasher if the thief stole
wood and constructed a Sukah with it - either because he then acquires it
with Shinuy Ma'aseh or Shinuy Hashem, or because (despite the fact that the
wood is still available) Chazal decreed that one may retain the wood, and
only needs to pay money, in order not to discourage the thief from repenting
and paying for his theft (known as 'Takanas ha'Shavin' or 'Takanas Marish')
by forcing him to demolish his house in order to return the wood that he
(c) And the Rabbanan agree that if someone stole a ready-made Sukah on a
wagon or on a ship, that the Sukah is Pasul - because 'Takanas ha'Shavin'
only applies when he built the wood into his house (involving a lot of work,
which would now have to be re-done, if he had to remove it and return it),
but not here, where he stole the complete Sukah.
(d) When the Resh Galusa's servants stole that woman's wood, and Rav Nachman
ruled that she was only entitled to receive payment for the stolen goods,
but had no claim on the wood itself - she became very agitated. She asked
him how the Rabbanan can simply ignore the cries of a woman whose father
(Avraham) had three hundred and eighteen slaves. Rav Nachman referred to
her as a noisy woman.
(a) There is reason to believe that 'Takanas Marish' (or 'ha'Shavin') should
not apply to a large beam of wood - because it is valuable, and (unlike
small pieces of wood, which one can always obtain) is hard for the owner to
(b) 'Takanas Marish' applies by a Sukah even after the termination of Sukos
- if the beam was permanently fixed to the Sukah.
(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana Kama invalidates a dry Lulav, whereas Rebbi
Yehudah validates it. The Rabbanan compare Lulav to Esrog (where the Torah
explicitly requires "Hadar"), explains Rava; Rebbi Yehudah does not,
because, in his opinion, a Hekesh (like a Gezeirah-Shavah) must be
transmitted from one's Rebbes (as is the case by all of the thirteen
principles except for a Kal va'Chomer). Note: This is not the generally-
accepted approach - see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yehudah'.
(b) Even though Rebbi Yehudah does not require 'Hadar' by a Lulav, he
nevertheless rules ...
1. ... in our Mishnah, that a Lulav whose leaves have come away from the
spine must be tied - because of the Pasuk "Kapos Temarim" (which means,
according to him, that loose leaves must be tied).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah's reason there, cannot possibly be due to 'Hadar' -
because, in Rava's opinion, he even permits tying it with parts of the date-
palm, that will not enhance the looks of the Lulav at all.
2. ... in a Mishnah later, that the Lulav must be tied together with the
Hadasim and the Aravos - because he learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "u'Lekachtem"
"u'Lekachtem" from the Agudas Ezov of the Korban Pesach.
(d) On the other hand, he forbids tying them with any other species -
because, seeing as Rebbi Yehudah requires tying the Lulav, tying it with
another species will entail 'Bal Tosif' (adding to the four species), which
(a) Someone who does not have an Esrog - may not use a quince or a
pomegranate in its place.
(b) An Esrog is ...
- ... Kasher if it is withered.
- ... but not if it is dry.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah proves from the people who used to bequeath their Lulavin
to their grandchildren - that a dry Lulav is Kasher.
(b) We initially thought that Rebbi Yehudah also referred to a dry *Esrog* -
from which we see that Rebbi Yehudah does *not* require Hadar by an Esrog
either (a Kashya on Rava, who said earlier that he *does*).
(c) According to Rava - Rebbi Yehudah is *really* referring to a dry
*Lulav*, but not to an *Esrog*.
(a) The opening words of the Beraisa that we just quoted are that just as it
is forbidden to *detract* from the four species, so too, is it forbidden to
*add* to them - because we might otherwise have thought that since Rebbi
Yehudah requires tying the species together, it would be permitted to add
other species, as long as one does not bind them together with the other
three (The Beraisa now teaches us that, although adding another species in
this way does not detract from the Mitzvah, it is nevertheless forbidden,
because of 'Bal Tosif' - see Tosfos DH 'Ho'il').
(b) It is also not so obvious that one cannot use a quince or a pomegranate
in lieu of an Esrog - because we might have permitted this so as not to
forget the Mitzvah of Lulav.
(c) In fact, it is forbidden - because one might come to believe that a
quince or a pomegranate are viable alternatives to an Esrog, and will go on
to permit them Lechatchilah in future years.
(a) We finally prove from the Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah specifically
permits an old Esrog - that Rebbi Yehudah does not require Hadar by an Esrog
either (to which Rava has no answer).
(b) Even though Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of 'Hadar' even by an Esrog, he
nevertheless invalidates an Esrog that is ...
1. ... as green as leek - because the fruit is not yet completed.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi - the Esrog may even be so large that one can
only hold it with two hands.
2. ... smaller than an egg - for the same reason.
3. ... too large for a person to hold two of them in one hand - because,
should the Esrog be larger than that, one might, after receiving the Lulav
and Esrog from one's friend, attempt to change the Lulav to the right hand
and the Esrog to the left, and due to its size, drop the Esrog.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah interprets "Hadar" which the Torah writes by Esrog - to
mean that it remains on the tree the whole year (from which we derive that
the "P'ri Eitz Hadar" of the four species is an Esrog (since it is the only
fruit to remain on the tree for so long).
(a) Rava validates a Lulav of Avodah-Zarah - which means either a Lulav that
was used to sweep in front of an idol, or one that they passed in front of
it or threw in front of it (assuming that that was the way it was
(b) It is not forbidden to use such an Esrog (due to it being 'Asur
be'Hana'ah') - because of the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (the
purpose of a Mitzvah is to serve Hashem, and not to derive physical benefit
(c) Our Mishnah, which invalidates a Lulav from an Asheirah - is speaking
about an Asheirah that existed in Eretz Yisrael at the time when Yisrael
entered it, and which the Torah ordered to be burned. Since it had to be
burned, it was as if it was already burned, and therefore had no Shiur. Rava
on the other hand, is speaking about ordinary idolatry, which does not need
to be burned, and which is therefore Kasher. The proof for this is that the
Lulav of Asheirah is mentioned together with that of an Ir ha'Nidachas,
which has to be burned.