The material offered on this website is excellent!
I have used this Question--Answer service in the past, regarding the topic of Mitzvah ha'bah Be'averiah (mitzvah that comes from a sin).
I have now moved on to study a Lulav of Avodah Zarah. However, I have come in contact (with a friend) with a very confusing and difficult Tosfos. The name of this Tosfos is TOSFOS (DH ba'Asheirah--daf 31b). I have looked on the Insight Page for aid, although discussed briefly, we still need help in fully learning this Tosfos correctly. If you can please help us out with the flow of Tosfos (questions and answers) it will be greatly appreciated, thank-you. We already learnt the Rashi discussing Rava's idea of a lulav.\\ Yet, (Why according to Rashi, is the avodah of Rava defined as a broom or throwing and not directly the idol itself??)
I also have some side-questions, may you PLEASE help me out with these too:
a)R. Yehudah answers on daf 31 Answer: It refers to a fruit which resides (haDar) on the tree from year to year (an ability of an Esrog). Is there another fruit that also resides on the tree from year to year??
b) We had a case in our Mishnah: LULAV FROM AN "ASHEIRAH" IS "PASUL". But we then posed a Question: But Rava allows (b'Di'eved) a Lulav from Avodah Zara!? We answer that we refer to an Asheirah at the time of Moshe. My question is now this: why would the Mishnah be refering to something that does not exist anymore, even at the time the Mishnah was written. Moreover, what practical learning may we derive from something that has no existence? And, is there any other Mishnah that brings down a case that does not even exist at the time the Mishnah was written??
c) The Gemarah had a major dispute on 31b as to if R' Yehudah really requieres Hadar. We brought down cases of adding to Minim , substitution of other fruits, etc. All these were rejected on the basis of other reasons. Then, finally, we bring the knock-out refutation: We see in the Beraisa that R. Yehudah permits an old Esrog!? My question is: Why doesn't the Gemarah just bring this refutation directly down-- Could we have learned differently if not for these cases and interpertaions of Rava that we had earlier on?? (Besides the fact that we need to see the flow of the Gemarah could we learn anything different)??
If you can help me out, it will be greatly appreciated-- thank you. I hope my questions are good!
Yale, Miami Beach, FL., U.S.A.
1. It is very possible Rashi just took the most simple case, which is that the Lulav was used in a fashion that Lulavim were normally used, namely for sweeping. It would be forbidden as it is "Tashmishei Avodah Zarah" -- "something used to facilitate Avodah Zarah," but is subject to nullification (unlike Tikroves Avodah Zarah which is not). It is also possible that this is not as disgusting as something that was an Avodah Zarah itself, and therefore less likely to become unsuitable for a Mitzvah to the degree that it is Pasul just because it was once used to sweep the floor of an Avodah Zarah.
a) The Rambam, in his introduction to Mishnayos, explains that no one ever doubted what the Torah's intent was regarding the identification of the Four Species. From the time of the giving of the Torah, Bnei Yisrael always had these four species, and passed their identity down for generations. The Gemara merely tries to find hints at the identity of the Four Species in the Pesukim in order to see where they are alluded to in the Torah. However, whether or not there are other such fruits, they would not negate the fact that our tradition has always been that a "Pri Etz Hadar" is an Esrog.
b) Tosfos (DH "ba'Asheirah") explains that Asheirah d'Moshe does not mean an Asheirah from the time of Moshe Rabeinu, but rather any tree that was planted in order to be a tree of Avodah Zarah. The Mishnah does not quote cases that will never possibly be relevant (even Ben Sorer u'Moreh could technically happen), but does quote cases that will be relevant in the future although they are not relative now, like laws pertaining to the Beis Hamikdash.
c) The Gemara will usually attempt to bring other proofs before finally bringing a solid proof. This is in order to negate other proofs that are not valid and for other reasons.
See the accompanying PDF document for an explanation of Tosfos.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose