SUKAH 44 (17 Adar II) - Dedicated by Elliot and Lori Linzer in honor of Mairav Linzer's birthday.

1)

(a)Abaye asked Rabah why Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted seven days Zeicher l'Mikdash with regard to Lulav and not Aravah. On what grounds did he reject ...

1. ... Rabah's answer (that it is because we are Yotzei the latter when we take the Lulav)?

2. ... the suggestion that one should in fact pick it up twice, once for the Mitzvah of Lulav, and once for the Mitzvah of Aravah?

(b)How does Rav Zevid in the name of Rava attempt to answer the question by differentiating between the status of Lulav and that of Aravah?

(c)And we refute this suggestion in one of two ways. According to Aba Shaul, it is because (based on the Pasuk "Arvei Nachal") Aravah is no less d'Oraisa than Lulav. What do we answer according to the Chachamim (based on a statement of Rebbi ... Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Beka'as Beis Chursan)?

(d)Citing Rav Zevid in the name of Rava, how do we finally distinguish between the two Mitzvos, to explain why we take Lulav seven days by Lulav, but Aravah only one?

1)

(a)Abaye asked Rabah why Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted seven days Zeicher l'Mikdash with regard to Lulav and not Aravah. He rejected ...

1. ... Rabah's answer (that it is because we are Yotzei with the 'Aravah' in the Lulav) - because when one takes the Aravah in the Lulav, it is the Mitzvah of Lulav that one is fulfilling, and not that of Aravah.

2. ... the suggestion that one should in fact pick it up twice, once for the Mitzvah of Lulav, and once for the Mitzvah of Aravah - because nobody does that.

(b)Rav Zevid in the name of Rava tries to answer the question by differentiating between the status of Lulav and that of Aravah, due to the fact that - Lulav is d'Oraisa, whereas 'Aravah' is d'Rabanan.

(c)) And we refute this suggestion in one of two ways. According to Aba Shaul, it is because (based on the Pasuk "Arvei Nachal") the Mitzvah of Aravah is no less d'Oraisa than Lulav. Whereas according to the Chachamim (based on a statement of Rebbi ... Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Beka'as Beis Chursan) - it is 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d)Citing Rav Zevid in the name of Rava, we finally distinguish between the two Mitzvos - by pointing out that whereas the Mitzvah of Lulav outside the Beis Hamikdash has a source (i.e. on the first day), that of Aravah on the last day does not (so it will suffice to limit the decree to one day only).

2)

(a)Despite the fact that blemished Kohanim are not normally permitted to enter the area between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, What does Resh Lakish say about them with regard to the Mitzvah of 'Aravah'?

(b)What do we initially think Rebbi Yochanan meant when he asked for the name of the author?

(c)What problem do we have with that?

(d)We therefore re-interpret his query, which is really in two parts. Firstly, he asks, who says that the Mitzvah of Aravah is taking it, maybe it is merely sticking it on the Mizbe'ach. So what if it is? Why would that refute Resh Lakish's statement?

(e)What is his second query of Resh Lakish?

2)

(a)Despite the fact that blemished Kohanim are not normally permitted to enter the area between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach - Resh Lakish permits them to do so in order to perform the Mitzvah of 'Aravah' (to go round the Mizbe'ach with the Aravah).

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan asked for the name of the author, we initially think that what he meant was - who is the Tana who assumes that taking the Aravah is an obligation (that needs to be fulfilled)?

(c)The problem with that is - that he himself cited Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Baka'as, who considers Aravah a 'Halachah ... '!?

(d)We therefore re-interpret his query, which is really in two parts. Firstly, he asks, who says that the Mitzvah of Aravah is taking it (which would obligate each Kohen to take it), maybe it is merely sticking it on the Mizbe'ach - in which case one Kohen would suffice to place it on behalf of all of them.

(e)Secondly, he asks - who says that blemished Kohanim were included in the Mitzvah?! Maybe the Halachah ... pertains to Kohanim who are not blemished!?

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan argues with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi as to whether 'Aravah' is a Yesod Nevi'im or a Minhag Nevi'im. Which Nevi'im are we talking about?

(b)What is the difference between a 'Yesod' and a 'Minhag'? What are the ramifications of the Machlokes?

(c)What do we conclude is Rebbi Yochanan's opinion in the above Machlokes? What did Rebbi Avahu quote him as saying?

(d)We query Rebbi Yochanan however, by citing what he quoted in the name of Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Baka'as. What was that?

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan argues with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi as to whether 'Aravah' is a Yesod Nevi'im or a Minhag Nevi'im - Chagai Zecharyah and Malachi (who were members of the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah, who in turn, were responsible for many Takanos).

(b)'Yesod Nevi'im' means - that the Nevi'im instituted it in the form of an obligation; 'Minhag Nevi'im' - that they introduced it as a Minhag, in which case it will not require a Berachah.

(c)We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds - 'Aravah Yesod Nevi'im', since that is what Rebbi Avahu said in his name.

(d)We query Rebbi Yochanan however, by citing what he quoted in the name of Rebbi Nechunyah Ish Baka'as - who gives the source for 'Aravah' as Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (in which case it cannot be a Yesod Nevi'im).

4)

(a)What was Rebbi Yochanan's initial reaction to the current question?

(b)How did he then attempt to reconcile Yesod Nevi'im with Halachah ... ?

(c)Why is this answer unacceptable? What did Rebbi Yochanan himself say (about the Bnei Bavel) that clashes with this answer?

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan's initial reaction to the current question was - one of surprise.

(b)He then tried to answer the question - by conceding that really 'Aravah' is 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai', only it had become forgotten during Galus Bavel, and it was the Nevi'im who re-instituted it.

(c)This answer is unacceptable however - on the grounds of a statement made by Rebbi Yochanan himself, where he says - that the Torah of the Bnei Eretz Yisrael is due to the Torah of the Bnei Bavel, who in spite of their having been in Galus, retained their learning (a proof that Galus had not caused Torah to become forgotten).

5)

(a)To whom was Rebbi Yochanan referring when he said 'Yours is really theirs'!

(b)Why did he initially think that the Bnei Eretz Yisrael ought to be sharper than the Bnei Bavel?

(c)Indeed, how did the Bnei Bavel manage to gain the edge over the Bnei Eretz Yisrael, in spite of being in Galus?

(d)So how does Rebbi Yochanan finally resolve the problem, based on location (rather than on status)?

5)

(a)When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Yours is really theirs'! - he was referring to Rav Kahana who came to him after running away from Bavel, and whom Rebbi Yochanan found indispensable in clarifying many issues.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan initially thought that the Bnei Eretz Yisrael ought to be sharper than the Bnei Bavel - because they had not suffered Galus.

(c)The Bnei Bavel managed to gain the edge over the Bnei Eretz Yisrael, in spite of being in Galus - due to the 'Cheresh and the Masger' (the thousand outstanding Talmidei-Chachamim who accompanied Yechonyah into Galus, and who opened great Torah academies in Bavel).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan finally resolves the problem - by differentiating between the Mikdash (where Aravah is Halachah ... ) and in the Gevulin (where it is Yesod Nevi'im).

44b----------------------------------------44b

6)

(a)Rav Ami issues three rulings with regard to 'Aravah': 1. that it requires a Shi'ur; 2. that it must be taken on its own. What is the third.

(b)Having said that it must be taken on its own, why does he need to add the third ruling?

(c)In which point does Rav Chisda Amar Rav Yitzchak disagree with Rav Ami?

6)

(a)Rav Ami issues three rulings with regard to 'Aravah': 1. that it requires a Shi'ur, and 2. that it must be taken on its own. The third ruling is - that one cannot be Yotzei with the 'Aravah' in the Lulav.

(b)In spite of having said that it must be taken on its own, he needs to add the third ruling - because we may have otherwise thought that the reason that it must be taken on its own is in order to make it clear that he is taking it for the Mitzvah. But taking the Lulav once for the Mitzvah of Lulav and then again for that of Aravah should be in order, since it is obvious that the second time, he is taking it for the Mitzvah of Aravah.

(c)Rav Chisda Amar Rav Yitzchak disagrees with Rav Ami - in his last point; according to him, one can be Yotzei by taking the Lulav a second time.

7)

(a)What Shi'ur does Rav Nachman give for 'Aravah'? How many twigs must there be, and how many leaves on each twig?

(b)Rav Sheshes is more lenient. What is the problem with his statement 'Even one leaf and one twig'?

(c)So what must he have really meant to say?

7)

(a)Rav Nachman gives the Shi'ur for 'Aravah' - as three twigs, each containing some fresh leaves.

(b)Rav Sheshes is more lenient. He says 'Even one leaf and one twig' - which is ridiculous, since what is the point of taking one leaf separately and one twig separately?

(c)What he must have really meant to say is one twig containing one leaf (though the Minhag is to take five long twigs containing many fresh leaves).

8)

(a)Ayvu and Chizkiyah brought an 'Aravah' to their grandfather Rav. He did with it exactly the same as Ayvu, Rav's father said he saw Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok do. What did they both do with the 'Aravah', and what do we learn from them?

(b)A man who owned villages, vineyards and olive-groves came before Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in the Shemitah-year. What She'eilah did he ask him?

(c)What reply did he receive?

8)

(a)Ayvu and Chizkiyah brought an 'Aravah' to their grandfather Rav. He did with it exactly the same as Ayvu, Rav's father said he saw Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok do - namely, take it and shake it (according to others, 'Chavit' means 'bang', which is our Minhag), but did not recite a Berachah, indicating that they held 'Aravah Minhag (and not Yesod) Nevi'im'.

(b)A man who owned villages, vineyards and olive-groves came before Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in the Shemitah-year - to discover whether his custom of paying his workers for their work of digging in his vineyards, with the olives from his olive-groves was correct.

(c)He was told - that it is forbidden to pay one's workers with Shemitah, which is public property.

9)

(a)What comment did Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok make before the man returned?

(b)Why did he say that? What was he referring to?

(c)Why did the man run out before asking for further instructions?

(d)What did Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok instruct him to do upon his return (besides declaring the olives Hefker for the poor)?

9)

(a)Before the man returned, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok commented that, in all the forty years that he had resided in that country, he had never seen a man who was so meticulous in his deeds.

(b)He was referring to the fact - that the man ran out before even asking for further instructions ...

(c)... in order to first of all stop the workers from eating any more olives, which, he had just discovered, was an act of theft.

(d)Upon his return, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok instructed him (to declare the olives Hefker for the poor, and) - to pay the workers a nominal fee from his own pocket for digging under the vines.

10)

(a)The Torah writes in Mishpatim "v'ha'Shevi'is Tishmetenah u'Netashtah". What do we learn from the word ...

1. ... "Tishmetenah"?

2. ... "u'Netashtah"?

(b)How does Rav Ukva bar Chama reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, who permitted digging under the trees in the vineyards?

10)

(a)The Torah writes in Mishpatim "v'ha'Shevi'is Tishmetenah u'Netashtah". We learn from the word ...

1. ... "Tishmetenah" - that digging under a tree during the Shemitah is forbidden.

2. ... "u'Netashtah" - that removing stones from one's field (in order to render the field fit for plowing) is forbidden too.

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok permitted digging in the vineyards - because, as Rav Ukva bar Chama explains, what he permitted was to dig in order to fill in the cracks which left the roots of the trees exposed (and whose purpose was to prevent the tree from drying up); whereas what the Torah forbids is digging in order to soften the earth (or to improve the tree), which is intended to enhance the tree's growth.

11)

(a)Ayvu Amar Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok also forbade walking more than three Parsa'os (twelve Mil, which is just under three and a half hours walking distance) on Erev Shabbos. In the first Lashon, Rav Kahana restricts this stringency to someone who is homeward bound, but not if he is on the outward journey. Why the difference?

(b)What does he say in the second Lashon?

(c)What happened once to Rav Kahana himself?

11)

(a)Ayvu Amar Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok also forbade walking more than three Parsah (just under three and a half hours walking distance) on Erev Shabbos. In the first Lashon, Rav Kahana restricts this stringency to someone who is homeward bound - who will be cross (and thereby disturb the Shabbos atmosphere) when he discovers that they did not prepare sufficient food for him; but not if he is on his outward journey - where he does not rely on his hosts in the first place, and he will make do with whatever he has.

(b)According to the second Lashon, Chazal are concerned that he should not go hungry on Shabbos. Consequently - they even forbade traveling more than three Parsah on his homeward journey, where any food in his house belongs to him anyway, and certainly on the outward one, where he is less likely to find any food upon his arrival.

(c)Rav Kahana once arrived home unexpectedly, and he found nothing at all to eat, not even a dish of little fish fried in flour.

12)

(a)The Beraisa expert learned that (in the case in our Mishnah) they would deposit their Lulavim on the roof of the covered-seating area ('al Gag ha'Itztava'). Why is this text illogical, and how do we emend it?

(b)What does Rachbah quote Rav Yehudah as having said?

12)

(a)The Beraisa expert learned that, in our Mishnah - they would deposit their Lulavim on the roof of the covered-seating area ('al Gag ha'Itztava'). But why on earth would they place the Lulavim on the roof of the Itztava, where they would be exposed to the sun and become dry? The text must therefore read (not 'al Gag, but) 'al Gav ha'Itztava', meaning on the seats, inside the shelter!

(b)Rachbah quotes Rav Yehudah as having said - 'Har ha'Bayis Satav Kaful Hayah, Satav li'Fnim mi'Satav', meaning that the Har ha'Bayis contained a double row of these shelters, one within the other.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF