Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Mishna:  If one buys a lulav from an [am ha’aretz] in the Shemittah year, the seller should give him the esrog for free because one is not permitted to buy fruit from an am ha’arts during Shemittah. (Since sukkos is at the beginning of the seventh year, the lulav is a sixth year lulav and permissible, but the esrog is counted from the time of its picking, making it a seventh year esrog [31.6]).  Gemara:   Question: What if he doesn’t wish to give it for free?  Rav Huna: The price of the esrog may be included in the lulav’s price.  Question: Why can’t one just pay for the esrog straight out **?  Response: Because money of shemittah -fruit cannot be given to an am ha’aretz*.  Beraisa: More than three meals worth of shemittah-fruit money cannot be given to an am ha’aretz [because the money has kedushas shevi’is and is transferred to whatever is bought with the money. So we don’t trust the am ha’aretz to use it only for food. Since he may need to purchase three meals at a time - before Shabbos - we allow him this amount of money]. If he was given more money the giver must make a pronouncement that the money should be redeemed for other fruits.* Those fruits then acquire kedushas shvi’is. But this is only if the am ha’aretz is leaving it hefker, but if his garden is kept locked, then even the smallest coin shouldn’t be given to him (because if it’s not hefker, it’s ossur b’hana’ah - [the Tosfos on this is included in tomorrow’s shiur]).  Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQt72CWDtlAq-wLw5-VO26sBzXbksLlv/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: He can’t make transactions with his property which is no longer in his possession. This is a punishment for him because he gave the money to the am ha’aretz.  * *Tosfos: It isn’t considered business with shemittah -fruit as long as the seller didn’t pick the fruit to sell. The Yerushalmi adds that even if one picked the fruit himself, he may sell it, if it’s mixed with fruit picked by someone else. The “sochrei shvi’is” criticized by the gemara is a case where they set up an official shop which is always forbidden. Or perhaps it refers to people who buy and sell at a profit. * Rashi: Since the money has kedushas Shevi’is it must be spent before the zman biur. Tosfos: What about the things that don’t have biur? The reason is because we’re worried he would spend the money on things he is not allowed to use shevi’is money for. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   They asked of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: If one heard [hallel] but did not say it, what is the law?  Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: Everybody is in agreement that he was yotze.   Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quoting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from Bar Kappara: The principle of shomeia k’oneh is learned from the verse “The words read by the king” but actually Shafan read it to the king.  Challenge: Perhaps he read it himself afterwards.   Resolution: The other verse states “When you heard”, it means he heard them but did not read them.  Rava: One shouldn’t pause between “Baruch Haba” and “Bsheim Hashem”. (We don’t welcome everyone who comes just to form a crowd, only those who come b’sheim Hashem). [The parenthetical remark in the gemara here should be skipped, its proper place is later].  Rava: One shouldn’t pause between “Yehei Shmei Rabbah” and “Mevorach”.   Rav Safra: “Moshe! Are you saying correctly?!” (He’s talking to Rava, Moshe means “Great man”) In both cases he is merely concluding his phrase*. We learned in the mishna (30.6): “Where the custom is to repeat verses, he should repeat, and where that is not the custom, he should not repeat.”  Beraisa: Rebbi Would repeat the Ana Hashems. Rabbi Elazar ben Porta would add more verses.  Abayye: He would add from Odcha and on.   We learned in the mishna (30.6): “Where it is the custom to recite a bracha he should recite a bracha.”   Abayye: This refers to the final bracha [melech mehullal batishbachos] but beforehand one must say a bracha as Rav Yehuda quoted from Shmuel: One must recite a bracha before [the Hebrew word “over”] doing the mitzvos.   Question: Where do we find that the word ‘over’ means ‘before’?  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: Vaya’avor es hakushi.   Abayye: V’hu avar lifneihem.   Or: Vaya’avor malkom lifneihem vaHashem b’rosham.  * Tosfos : From the gemara in Sotah it seems that Rava came to accept Rav Safra’s opinion. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Rava: Mighty halachos can be learned from the minhag of hallel.  Rashi: Originally, not everyone was able to say Hallel on their own, this is why our mishna (30.6) teaches that if one hears it from an adult male he is yotzei and if he hears it from a woman he must repeat the words himself. In Rava’s time everyone was able to say Hallel on their own, but they still followed certain customs to remember how Hallel was originally said. The original custom was that the crowd [of the uneducated] was silent while the Shatz recited Hallel aloud [and the educated said the words silently along with him], and after every phrase, they [the uneducated] would respond “Hallelukah”. The first “Hallelukah” was proclaimed even by the educated. They [the uneducated] would also repeat the first verse of every chapter. Rava now delineates the current custom [of his time]: The Shatz says Hallelukah, and everyone shouts Hallelukah. This shows that originally everyone responded to the first Hallelukah. The Shatz says Hallelu avdei Hashem and everyone shouts Hallelukah. This shows that originally the uneducated responded “Hallelukah” after every phrase [read to them by an adult male]. The Shatz says Hodu LaHashem and everyone repeats it. This shows that originally the uneducated repeated the first verse of every chapter. The Shatz says Ana Hashem hoshia na and everyone repeats it. This shows that originally the uneducated repeated the entire Hallel [if it was read to them by a woman]. The Shatz says Ana Hashem hatzlicha na and everyone repeats it. This shows that if one wishes to repeat the verses he may do so (30.6). The Shatz says Boruch Habo and they [are silent and] respond “B’sheim Hashem”. This shows the principle of shomeia k’oneh for people who cannot repeat at all. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Gemara:   Beraisa: B’emes Omru [this is an expression that denotes a law accepted by the Sanhedrin] a boy can be motzi his father with Birkas Hamazon*.  An eved can be motzi his master and a wife can be motzi her husband with Birkas Hamazon, but a curse should come upon such a man (because he’s scorning Avodas Hashem, he should be the kohen gadol in his house).   Rava: Mighty halachos can be learned from the minhag of hallel**. * Rashi: In masichta Brachos the gemara explains that this is only if the father is not obligated in birkas hamazon d’oraysa. ( Tosfos there discusses whether the child can be motzi his father, if his meal also only has a d’rabanan obligation on birkas hamazon, because then he has two d’rabanan obligations). * *Rashi: From our custom nowadays, we can learn what the original customs were, see tomorrow’s shiur. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  The mishna discusses shaking the lulav; the naanuim.   Summary   We learned there (a mishna in Yevamos): [There is a mitzvah of tenufah for the] Shtei Halechem and the Kivsei Atzeres, this is how it’s done: The loaves are placed on the lambs, and everything is lifted up together. He moves them to and fro, up and down, as the possuk states: ‘Hunaf’ [horizontal movement] and ‘Huram’ [vertical movement].  Rabbi Yochanan: It is moved around in honor of He to Whom all directions belong. It is raised and lowered in of He to Whom heaven and earth belong.  In Eretz Yisroel they said: Rabbi Chama bar Ukva quoting Rabbi Yosi b’rebbi Chanina: It is moved around to protect against storm winds. It is raised and lowered to protect against bad dew.   Rabbi Yosi bar Avin or Rabbi Yosi bar Zvila: This teaches us that the remnants of a mitzvah protect against adversity; although the shtei halechem and the korbanos are kosher without tenufah, this extra part of the mitzvah is a protection against adversity; stormwinds and bad dews [see here for more on this subject]. https://torasavigdor.org/parshas-reeh-3-nation-of-volunteers-2/  Rava: The same procedure [and protection] applies to lulav  Rav Acha bar Yaakov would point his lulav as he waved it, he would say “This is an arrow in the Satan’s eye”. This practice should not be emulated as it can cause the Satan to bring great tests upon one who does so (it is a principle not to curse the Satan because he is a malach doing his job faithfully).  Mishna:  Someone who was travelling and did not have a lulav, he should take the lulav when he comes home [even] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning he can take it in the afternoon, all day is kosher.   Gemara:   Challenge: It seems that one must stop his meal in order to shake the lulav, but we learned [in Shabbos]: “If he began his meal, he need not stop [to pray]”.  Rav Safra: He need not stop when there is still time to finish the meal, but here it is already close to nighttime.  Rava: There is no difficulty; lulav is d’oraysa, tefillah is d’rabbanan. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Rabbah: The lulav shouldn’t be pushed into the bundle, because the leaves that come loose will form a chatzitzah.   Rava: Min b’mino eino chotzetz - Leaves of the same kind cannot be considered a chatzitzah.   Rabbah: The lulav shouldn’t be sawed off once it’s in the bundle, because loose lulav leaves will remain and form a chatzitzah.   Rava: Min b’mino eino chotzetz - Leaves of the same kind cannot be considered a chatzitzah.   Rabbah: The hadas set aside for the mitzvah should not be smelled, but the esrog may be smelled. The hadas is used for smelling, so it is set aside from smelling, but since an esrog is for eating too, it is set aside only from eating. [When one does a mitzvah with an object, he elevates that object. He thus sets it aside from its normal use in order to elevate it].  Rabbah: The hadas may be smelled (on Shabbos) while it’s attached to the ground, but the esrog may not be smelled. The hadas is used for smelling, so we’re not worried he will cut it off, but since an esrog is for eating too, he may cut it off the tree in order to eat it.  Rabbah: The lulav should be held in the right hand, and the esrog in the left hand. The lulav has three mitzvos but the esrog only has one.  Rabbi Yirmiyah to Rabbi Zrika: Why do we mention only the lulav in the bracha on the 4 minim (Al netilas lulav)?   [Rabbi Zrika]: Because it is taller than the rest.  [Rabbi Yirmiyah]: Let him lift the esrog up high?  Rabbi Zrika: It is the tallest object and most conspicuous.  Mishna:  Where are the naanuim made? At the beginning and end of [Rashi: the chapter of] Hodu LaHashem. Beis Hillel: And at Ana Hashem hoshia na. Beis Shamai: Also at Ana Hashem hatzlicha na.   Rabbi Akiva: I observed Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua; although the people shook their lulavim, they only shook their lulavim at Ana Hashem hoshia na.   Gemara:   Question: Who said anything about shaking?   Response: This is following up on the mishna (24.4): “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.” So the question here is, when is the lulav shaken. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=   Rabbah: One shouldn’t hold the lulav with a towel, it must be held fully - lekicha tamah.   Summary   Rava: Holding by means of something else, is still considered holding.  (According to Tosfos, the towel extends beyond the lulav and creates a sort of handle which he is holding; but merely grabbing it with a towel wrapped around one’s hand is not under discussion here).  Rava: I have proof from the following mishna:  “If the bundle of eizov (11.2) is too short to be dipped, it can be lengthened by means of a thread or it can be held with a fork.”  But the Torah uses the expression of lekicha with regard to Eizov, so we see that it is still considered holding it.  Challenge: There it is attached to the eizov, but in our case the towel is not attached to the lulav? -(According to Rashi, this mishna is discussing a completely different case than holding something wrapped in a lulav, but according to Tosfos, the cases are similar because the lulav isn’t just wrapped in a towel but extended by means of a handle). A different proof:  “[If the ashes of the Parah] fell from the tube into the vessel [where it is to be mixed into the Mayim Chaim], it is possul.  It seems that if one spilled the tube intentionally, it would be kosher even the though the Torah uses the expression of “lekicha”.  This is indeed a satisfactory proof. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*  Summary   Mishna:   Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav may only be tied with its own kind.   Rabbi Meir: Even with a string.  Rabbi Meir: The anshei Yerushalayim would bind their lulavim with gold wire.  They said to him: It was actually tied with its own kind, they covered it with strips of gold for ornamental purposes.  Gemara:   Rava: Even the [loose] bark of the palm tree, or its roots [is considered ‘its kind’ by Rabbi Yehuda].  Rava: Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that “Lulav tzarich agad”, since that’s the case, binding it with another kind would mean that you’re taking 5 minim instead of 4 (see 25.3 for the explanation of Tosfos).   Rava: I have proof that the bark and roots are considered the lulav’s ‘kind’ from this beraisa:  “You should dwell in sukkos” Rabbi Meir: It [the schach] can be made of any kind. Rabbi Yehuda: Only from the 4 species of the lulav. This can be derived logically. Since lulav which is only taken during the daytime, must be of the four species, certainly sukkah which applies even during the night, must be of the 4 species.  They said to him: A kal vachomer [a logical argument which intends to apply a stricter standard] which results in a leniency, is not a valid kal vachomer. This will result in a leniency, because what if he doesn’t have the 4 species, should he remain without a sukkah? The Torah says “You should dwell in sukkos”, it means that everybody, even those who don’t have access to the 4 species, should build sukkos.  Additionally there’s a proof from the possuk in Ezra which mentions other species as well “Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves, oil leaves, hadassim, lulavim and aravos” (10.3).  (Rava’s proof will be continued tomorrow) This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here: *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*  Summary  An esrog that was pierced by the teeth of rats: Rav: It is not hadar [and thus possul].   Challenge: But “Rabbi Chanina would dip the esrog [in oil] [and chew a piece of it] and then use the esrog”. (So we see that even an esrog pierced by teeth is kosher).  Question: Isn’t Rabbi Chanina opposed by the mishna (28.1) which disqualifies a pierced esrog?   Response: The mishna can be referring to the first day of Yom Tov, while Rabbi Chanina used the esrog on the second day. But according to Rav, since it’s disqualified by not being hadar, it should be possul on the second day as well (the arba minim are disqualified for all of yom tov only if it is possul because of ‘hadar’, see 24.5)?  Resolution: An esrog that was pierced is kosher on the second day, but if it was pierced by rats, it’s disgusting and not hadar.  Some say: An esrog that was pierced by the teeth of rats: Rav: It is hadar despite being chewed upon, because “Rabbi Chanina would dip the esrog [and chew a piece of it] and then use the esrog”. (So we see that even an esrog pierced by teeth is kosher).   Question: Isn’t Rabbi Chanina opposed by the mishna (28.1) which disqualifies a pierced esrog?   Response: The mishna can be referring to the first day of Yom Tov, while Rabbi Chanina used the esrog on the second day.  We learned in the mishna (28.1): A small esrog: Rabbi Meir: It must be the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be the size of an egg.   Rafram bar Papa: The same machlokes can be found regarding avanim mekurzalos (stones that are used as toilet paper, either ‘smooth stones’ or ‘elongated stones’. While stones may not be used on Shabbos, Chazal allowed for what is necessary for personal hygiene):   Beraisa: Three avanim mekurzalos may be taken* in to the restroom on Shabbos. Rabbi Meir: Stones the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: Stones the size of an egg. We learned in the mishna (28.1): A large esrog: Rabbi Yehuda: He must be able to hold two in one hand. Rabbi Yosi: Even if he can only hold one in both hands, it’s kosher.  Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi: Rabbi Akiva once lugged an esrog to the synagogue on his shoulder [it was so large]. Rabbi Yehuda: That is no proof, the Chachomim said to him that he cannot fulfill the mitzvah with such an esrog which is not hadar.  Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o0LtEvylz1gZIZ3sBYUYUWFVh 4bIeac/view?usp=sharing  * According to Rashi the issue here is muktzeh, because he is carrying it less than 4 amos in a karmelis [they relieved themselves on open fields].   Tosfos: The beraisa states “to take in”, additionally, the word ‘beis hakisei’ is used which does indicate a room. Tosfos explains that the permission regarding these stones was to carry them from a karmelis to a reshus hayachid. Actually handling muktzeh is more severe than carrying in a karmelis, so Rashi should admit that it is permissible if he believes muktzeh was permitted here. Nowadays when it’s possible to prepare before Shabbos, this special permission does not apply. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*  Summary   We learned (29.4): A black [Ethiopian] esrog is possul.   Challenge: Beraisa: An Ethiopian esrog is kosher, if it looks like an Ethiopian esrog [it’s black], it’s possul.  Abayye: Our mishna is referring to a black esrog that didn’t grow in Ethiopia, it merely looks Ethiopian.  Rava: For us [in Eretz Yisroel] it is possul [even if it’s actually from Ethiopia] for them [in Bavel, where they’re accustomed to Ethiopian esrogim], it is kosher.  We learned (29.4): An unripe esrog*: is possul according to Rabbi Akiva. The Chachomim permit its use.   Rabbah: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon are in agreement.  Rabbi Shimon: A small esrog is pottur from maaser [this agrees with Rabbi Akiva that it is possul with regard to esrog].   Abayye to Rabbah: Perhaps it is not so, perhaps it is only possul according to Rabbi Akiva with regard to esrog which must be hadar. And perhaps Rabbi Shimon only holds this position with regard to maaser which must be able to reproduce.  It is therefore not a valid comparison.   We learned (29.4): If it was grown in a form and is now shaped like some other creature, it’s possul.   Rava: If it was grown in a form but is shaped like an esrog, it’s kosher.  Question: It states explicitly “If it was grown in a form and is now shaped like some other creature”, but if it’s shaped like an esrog, it’s kosher.  Response: This is a case where ridges developed because of the form, Rava is saying that it’s still kosher. * Tosfos explains that an unripe esrog cannot be used regardless of its size, the unripeness alone disqualifies it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored As a zechus for the Refuah of Yekusel Yehudah ben Perel  Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor  Summary   We learned in the mishna (28.1): If the pitom is broken off, it’s possul.   Rabbi Yitzchok ben Elazar: The pestle was broken off (1. The pestle means the part that goes in - what we call the ukatz. 2. It refers to the stem of the pitom, if the flower falls off, it’s kosher but if the stem breaks off, it’s possul. 3. It refers to the part of the ukatz that’s in the esrog).  We learned in the mishna (28.1): If it was peeled, it’s possul.   Rava: An esrog which was somewhat peeled, like a browned date, is kosher.  Challenge: But in our mishna we learned, it’s possul.   Resolution: It depends if it’s peeled off completely or partially*.  We learned in the mishna (28.1): If it was split, or it was pierced and a bit is missing; it’s possul.   Ulla bar Chanina: If it was pierced through and through (not in middle where the meat of the fruit is, there even a bit is a problem), even the smallest bit missing, disqualifies it. If it is not through and through, the hole must be the size of a small coin called Issar.    Click here to listen with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fMEWhajesGrMr0rXJZhlVs IWrwd8pCQ/view?usp=sharing * Rashi: If the thin covering is peeled off completely, the esrog is kosher, because the entire fruit is uniform in color, otherwise it looks spotted (28.5).  Rabeinu Chananel (Tosfos): If it’s peeled off partially, it’s kosher, as we learn from Chullin. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today is the final day! Please make a generous donation at RabbiMillerCampaign.com   Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at gemara.RabbiMillerCampaign.com  Today is the day!  The TORAS AVIGDOR 48 Hour fundraiser is now live! Please make a generous donation at https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at *https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor*  Summary  We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher. According to the opinion (regarding terumah - 28.4) that it becomes muchshar; such an esrog becomes muchshar. According to the opinion that it is ruined; such an esrog is ruined.  We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher. According to the opinion (regarding orlah - 28.2) that it must be fit for consumption; such an esrog is fit for consumption. According to the opinion that it must be his property; such an esrog is his property according to the Chachomim (who argue on Rabbi Meir, 28.2).   We learned in the mishna (28.1): If a chazazis came on most of the esrog, it’s possul. If a chazazis came on a small part of the esrog, it’s kosher.   Rav Chisda (See 27.2): The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work [he was still alive at the time]: The esrog is only disqualified by this blemish if the chazazis is in one area, but in several areas, it’s kosher.  Rava: If it’s in several areas, then it’s a spotted esrog and it is surely possul. There was an error in the way the statement was reported, it must be on the second part of the mishna - that a chazazis on a small part of the esrog is kosher:  Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work: The esrog is only kosher if the chazazis is in one area, but in several areas, it’s possul.   Rava: On the nose of the esrog, any minute flaw makes it possul. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today is the day!  The TORAS AVIGDOR 48 Hour fundraiser is now live! Please make a generous donation at https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor Please consider adding $18 in honor of Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor or $10 in honor of the 10 Minute Kevius at *https://torasavigdor.thechesedfund.com/2021/teams/yeshivahbneiavigdor*  Summary   We learned in the mishna (28.1): “An esrog of terumah temeiah is possul”.  Because it is forbidden to eat.   We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher.  The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.  According to one: Because it may become muchshar (the lulav was stored in water and would wet the esrog; setting it up for contracting tumah - see 11.4).  According to the other: Because it is ruined (the peel becomes brown from handling).  The difference would be in a case where he proclaimed the entire fruit - except for its peel - terumah. It would still have the problem of making the fruit muchshar, but not the issue of ruining the peel.  We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used, but if it was used, it’s kosher.  According to the opinion (regarding orlah - 28.2) that it must be fit for consumption; such an esrog is fit for consumption. According to the opinion that it must be his property; such an esrog is his property.   We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of Demai: Beis Shammai: It is possul. Beis Hillel: It is kosher.  [Demai is food produced by amei ha’aretz. We generally don’t eat it because we don’t trust that they separated terumos and maasros. But actually the majority of amei ha’aretz did separate terumos and it was thus permitted for paupers to eat without separating terumos].  Beis Hillel permits this esrog since one can become a pauper at any moment by giving away all his property, Demai is thus technically permitted for him to eat (the problem with an esrog that cannot be eaten is that it’s not considered ‘lachem’, but here since he has the potential to eat it, it is permissible). We learned this in a mishna: We feed paupers demai. We also feed soldiers demai (according to some this refers to non-jewish soldiers, if terumah needs to be separated from a food, you cannot give it away to a gentile. According to others this refers to Jewish soldiers, although they may be landowners, they’re considered paupers as long as they’re on active duty). According to Beis Shammai, demai is not permissible for paupers, as we learned: We feed paupers demai. We also feed soldiers demai.   Rav Huna: Learn it this way: Beis Shammai: Paupers and soldiers cannot be fed with demai. Beis Hillel: Paupers and soldiers are fed demai. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= An esrog of orlah is possul. The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rav Asi. According to one: Because it cannot be eaten*. According to the other: Because it is not considered your property** (because it is ossur b’hana’ah). Everyone agrees that the esrog must be suitable to eat. They only differ as to whether it must also be the owner’s property. The difference is that according to Rabbi Meir: Maaser Sheini is considered Hashem’s property which we are allowed to eat when we are in Yerushalayim. Such an esrog is not one’s property but is permissible to eat.  Summary   A proof that Rabbi Asi is the one who says ‘Because it is not considered your property’. Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.  Response: Indeed, it is a proof. Full Statement: Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.  Matzah of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim. Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah according to Rabbi Meir but it is according to the Chachomim.  Challenge: Rav Papa: Regarding dough, the possuk states “arisoseichem” - that it must belong to you. Similarly, regarding esrog the possuk states “lachem” - that it must belong to you. But where does it state that matzah must “belong to you”?  Rabbah bar Shmuel or perhaps Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya: We know from a gezeirah shaveh, since both matzah and challah are called lechem. Just as challah must be yours and not maaser sheini, the same goes for matzah*.  Suggestion: Perhaps a proof can be brought from the following: “Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah, according to Rabbi Meir. Chachomim: It is chayav in challah.   Challenge: Why is it only a possible proof?  Resolution: It is certainly a proof regarding challah. The question is only if we can deduce that the same principle applies to esrog and matzah. Perhaps Rabbi Meir only holds this view regarding challah where the possuk emphasizes that it “must belong to you” twice. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A-4M31kqYxUmxd9md4plSm42n5c-RHul/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos explains that since the Torah states ‘lachem’, one must be able to derive benefit by eating it. Tosfos resolves a difficulty on this from masichta Shabbos. * *Tosfos explains that this requirement only applies to the first day. This is why the gemara prefers to give a different reason for disqualifying an esrog of Asherah or ir hanidachas.  * Tosfos explains that this cannot be given as the reason to disqualify matzah of revel since tevel is technically the property of its owner, it’s just that the kohen and levi who are owed terumah are looked at as partners. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  The gemara brought proof that “Pri eitz hadar” refers to the esrog.   Summary   (Throughout the ages, the esrog was known [26.2], but the Chachomim are finding hints in the possuk).   Rebbi: “Hadar” is similar to “Hadir - The flock”. Just as a flock is made up of large and small animals, healthy and maimed animals, so too, the esrog tree has all types of esrogim. Although other trees also have all types of fruit, since the esrogim stay on the tree from season to season, the large fruits are there at the same time as the small fruits.  Rabbi Abahu: “Hadar” is similar to “Hador - He who dwells”. This refers to the esrog who dwells in his tree from year to year.  Ben Azai: “Hadar” is similar to “Hydor - Hydro” which means water in Greek. The fruit which requires an excessive amount of water is the esrog.   We learned in the mishna (28.1): From an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas is possul.  Since it must be burned, it is already considered ashes and thus not a proper shiur (25.5).  We learned in the mishna (28.1): An esrog of orlah is possul.  The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rav Asi.  According to one: Because it cannot be eaten. According to the other: Because it is not considered your property (because it is ossur b’hana’ah).   Challenge: We learned in the mishna: “Terumah temeiah is possul”. This seems to follow the opinion that something is disqualified when it cannot be eaten. But terumah temeiah is still considered the owner’s property and can be used as fuel!  Resolution: Everyone agrees that the esrog must be suitable to eat. They only differ as to whether it must also be the owner’s property.  Question: What difference does it make?  Response: According to Rabbi Meir: Maaser Sheini is considered Hashem’s property which we are allowed to eat when we are in Yerushalayim. Such an esrog is not one’s property but is permissible to eat. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by  Avraham Guber  In memory of those who died in the horrific Meron tragedy Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Mishna:  A stolen or dried out esrog is possul. From an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas is possul.  An esrog of orlah is possul.   Terumah temeiah is possul (because it is forbidden to eat).  An esrog of terumah shouldn’t be used (because it may become tamei), but if it was used, it’s kosher. An esrog of Demai: Beis Shammai: It is possul. Beis Hillel: It is kosher. An esrog of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim [where it may be eaten] shouldn’t be used (because it may become tamei), but if it was used, it’s kosher. If a chazazis - a growth of tiny blisters - came on most of the esrog, or if the pitom is broken off, if it was peeled, if it was split, it was pierced and a bit is missing; it’s possul.  If a chazazis came on a small part of the esrog, or if the ukatz is broken off, if it was pierced and nothing is missing; it’s kosher. A black esrog is possul.  If it’s green like a vegetable: Rabbi Meir: It is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It is possul.  A small esrog: Rabbi Meir: It must be the size of a walnut. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be the size of an egg. A large esrog: Rabbi Yehuda: He must be able to hold two in one hand. Rabbi Yosi: Even if he can only hold one in both hands, it’s kosher.  Gemara:   Beraisa: “The beautiful fruit of a tree” - this is the esrog whose tree tastes like its fruit.  Challenge: What about the pepper tree which also shares this quality, as we learn in a beraisa: “You will plant all [fruit] trees of food” - why does the possuk add ‘of food’, don’t all fruit trees give food? This teaches A. that even the pepper is included in the mitzvah of orlah. B. that nothing is missing from Eretz Yisroel as it states “you will lack nothing”.  Resolution: Our possuk cannot be referring to pepper. One peppercorn is too small to “take”, and the possuk refers to it in the singular, so more cannot be taken. Therefore “a fruit whose tree tastes like it” must refer to the esrog. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored In honor of Rabbi Moshe Horowitz Shlita in appreciation of all his great work at Toras Avigdor  Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Beraisa: What is the difference between an aravah and tzaftzafah?  The aravah’s stem is red and its leaf is elongated and its edge is smooth. The tzaftzafah has a white stem, its leaf is rounded and its edge is like a scythe [it has sharp teeth]. (In some cases, kosher aravos have some of these characteristics but since they have some of the kosher signs, they’re kosher).  Challenge: Beraisa: If it has points like a scythe (the teeth look like waves), it’s kosher, but if it has teeth like a saw it’s possul.   Abayye: This beraisa is discussing Chilfa Gilla [which is kosher even though it has spikes].  Abayye: We see from here that chilfa gilla may be used for the lulav.   Challenge: Isn’t that obvious?  Resolution: One might have thought that it’s possul since it has an attached name (26.5).  Question: Why indeed is it kosher?  Response: The Torah says ‘arvei nachal’ which implies all aravos.   Rav Chisda: Since the churban these three things have swapped their names: The aravah is now called chilfa, while chilfa is called aravah. So only chilfa is kosher for the lulav.  The shofar is now called chatzotzros , while chatzotzros is called shofar. So only the chatzotzros is kosher for Rosh Hashana. A pesorta (small table) is now called a pesora, while a pesora is called pesorta. It makes a difference with regard to buying and selling [one needs to know which he is ordering]. (The idea here is that when we had a Sanhedrin they would appoint inspectors to oversee everything in the land. They also took care to ensure that the language remained the same, because lexical changes can affect halachos and business).  Abayye: I’ll add one as well.  Bei kosi is now called huvlila, while huvlila is called bei kosi. It makes a difference with regard to a needle found in the beis hakosos [bei kosi in Aramaic]. (When a needle is found in the body of an animal, the animal is treif, but when it’s found in the stomach it may be kosher. If it is stuck in the wall of the stomach called the hemses - a thin wall - it is treif, but in the beis hakosos which is thick and fleshy, it is still kosher). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Mishna:  A stolen or dried out aravah is possul.  If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas, it is possul.  If the tip is broken off, or the leaves are broken, or a Tzaftzafah (another similar species), it is possul.  If it is wilted, missing some leaves, or it is watered by man (it doesn’t grow near a stream), it is kosher.  Gemara:   Beraisa: When the possuk says “Arvei nachal - willow of the streams” it means the species that grow near streams. A different peshat: A willow whose leaves are elongated like a stream.  Another Beraisa: “Arvei Nachal” indicates something that grows near a stream, but since “Arvei” [plural] denotes multiple willows, it teaches that aravos which are watered [by man] or grow on mountains are also kosher.  Abba Shaul: The plural Arvei teaches that there are two mitzvos of aravah, one that is taken with the lulav and one that is taken separately in the Mikdash. The Chachomim learn about the aravah in the Mikdash by tradition; halacha l’Moshe miSinai. As was taught by Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan: [These three halachos were handed down from Sinai together], The law of ten saplings [in a certain area may be plowed up to shmittah], the law of aravah [the special mitzvah in the Mikdash], and the mitzvah of nisuch hamayim.   Beraisa: When the possuk says “ Arvei nachal - willow of the streams” it means the species that grow near streams, this excludes the tzaftzafah - the species that grows in mountainous areas.  Rabbi Zeira: This is alluded to in the possuk “To take tzaftzafah in place of what grows on the waters”. (It means that when the Jewish people forsake their natural habitat in the mighty waters of Torah, they become an entirely different species, even though they may still look similar).  Abayye to Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps the possuk is saying that tzaftzafah is the species which grows on mighty waters?  Response: The wording of the possuk precludes that explanation.  Rabbi Abahu: Hashem says: I intended for the Jews to be like the aravah dwelling on the mighty waters of Torah, but they have made themselves into the tzaftzafah of the mountains (although they didn’t do any true sins, but a Jew must dwell on copious waters of Torah).  Some learn this possuk as a beraisa [not a statement of Rabbi Zeira] and then the question was asked by Rabbi Zeira [not Abayye]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by  Daily Tehillim An inspirational possuk every day by SMS/text with English translation (Starting after Shavuos)  Text 'Join' to 833-244-6181 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. There are two components to the concept of dichui in korbanos which the gemara seeks to apply to all mitzvos: A. Dichui mei’ikara - Something that was never acceptable for the mitzvah; and is now seeking to be accepted. B. Nireh v’nidcheh - Something that was at first acceptable, then experienced dichui; and is now again seeking to be accepted. The gemara sought to prove from this part of the mishna that at least “Dichui A” does not apply to mitzvos. The gemara explained that this part of the mishna is no proof since it is not yet Yom Tov and the mitzvah is not yet extant to be nidcheh.  Summary  We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov.  Question: What if he did remove the berries on Yom Tov? It seems that the hadas would be kosher. That can only be if we say that dichui does not apply to mitzvos:  If the berries become black (to disqualify the hadas, 27.2) before Yom Tov came in [thus a case of dichui mei’ikara], we can learn from this mishna that dichui mei’ikara does not apply to mitzvos. (But it seems from 27.2 that our mishna cannot be a proof to the question of dichui mei’ikara).  If they become black on Yom Tov [thus a case of nireh v’nidcheh], we can learn from this mishna that even nireh v’nidcheh does not apply to mitzvos.   Response: Indeed, we can learn from here that dichui mei’ikara does not apply to mitzvos but we have no proof regarding nireh v’nidcheh.   Beraisa: It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov. Rabbi Eliezer b’Rabbi Shimon: It is permissible.  Challenge: How can it be permissible to remove the berries on Yom Tov? He is ‘fixing’ the hadas!   Rav Ashi: This is a case where he removes the berries in order to eat them, Rabbi Eliezer follows the opinion of his father that “an unintended act is permissible”. [Since he didn’t intend to fix the hadas, he didn’t transgress anything by doing so].  Challenge: But Abayye and Rava both said that Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of “chopping off a head without causing death” [when the consequence of an act is unavoidable, it is not permissible just because it was unintended].  Rav Ashi: This is a case where he has another hadas [he thus does not need the melacha, placing this in the category of melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufah which Rabbi Shimon is lenient with. Although even Rabbi Shimon doesn’t generally permit melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufah, here it is permitted because its a mitzvah. Tosfos).   Beraisa: If the bundle of the lulav set came apart on Yom Tov when tying is forbidden, it may be bound like a vegetable bundle (it is wrapped rather than tied).   Challenge: Let him make a bow? (Like we do for gelilah on Shabbos, we actually make a bow all week because according to some, it would be forbidden to untie on Shabbos otherwise).  Resolution: This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who includes making bows in the prohibition of tying.  Challenge: But Rabbi Yehuda holds lulav tzarich agad (10.1) - that it is a Torah requirement to bind the lulav, thus he certainly requires a proper knot?  Resolution: The beraisa only agrees with the first position of Rabbi Yehuda [regarding making a bow] but not with the second [regarding agad]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   We learned in the mishna (26.4): If its berries are more numerous than leaves, it’s possul.   Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work [spreading Torah in Bavel]: This is only if the berries are numerous in one area, but in several areas, it’s kosher.  Rava: If the berries are scattered, then it’s a spotted hadas and it is surely possul. There was an error in the way the statement was reported, it must be as follows:  Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work: This is only if the berries are already black, but if they’re still green, it’s kosher, it’s just like green leaves.  Rav Papa: Red berries are like black berries. As taught by Rabbi Chanina: Black blood is essentially red blood only that it suffered a change.  We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher.   Question: When did he remove the berries? Tentative Response: Before he tied the hadassim into the bundle, it is certainly kosher. The mishna must be teaching that it’s kosher if the berries were removed even after agad. We thus see that taaseh does not apply to the lulav (because it’s kosher), and that dichui mei’ikara* is not applied to mitzvos.   Response: We cannot bring proof to the principle of dichui because agad doesn’t matter, it is only a preparation for the mitzvah. The mitzvah only actually begins when Yom Tov comes in, by which time he had already removed the berries; that’s why it’s kosher. * Rashi: There are two components to the concept of dichui in korbanos which the gemara seeks to apply to all mitzvos: A. Dichui mei’ikara - Something that was never acceptable for the mitzvah [from the time it was ‘made’]; and is now seeking to be accepted. B. Nireh v’nidcheh - Something that was at first acceptable, then experienced dichui; and is now again seeking to be accepted. The gemara here seeks to prove that at least “Dichui A” does not apply to mitzvos. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: Does dichui apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos?   Summary   Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:  “Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok: If one transgresses the laws of Yom Tov to remove the berries that grew on his hadassim, it is possul. Chachomim: It is kosher.” We can say that ‘lulav ein tzarich agad’ [the lulav need not be ‘made’ by tying it together with the hadassim and aravos], but even if it does need to be ‘made’, the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos does not apply to lulav as well. Thus, Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok holds that dichui applies to mitzvos [and since the hadassim were possul with the advent of yom tov, they can no longer become kosher], while the Chachomim hold that dichui does not apply to mitzvos.   Response: No, everyone agrees that dichui does not apply to mitzvos, they argue over whether the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos applies to lulav or not* [this implies that we hold lulav tzarich agad].   Or we can say: If we hold lulav tzarich agad, then certainly the taaseh applies, but the Chachomim hold that lulav ein tzarich agad.   The debate about lulav tzarich agad (10.1):  Beraisa: “A lulav is kosher whether it’s bound or not. Rabbi Yehuda: A lulav is kosher if it’s bound and possul if unbound”.  Rabbi Yehuda learns a gezeirah shaveh; The word ‘lekicha’ is used regarding lulav and regarding the hyssop bundle [used in the preparation of the korban pesach in Mitzrayim]. The Chachomim do not learn the gezeirah shaveh.   Question: Whose opinion does this beraisa follow? “A lulav should be bound, but is kosher even if it remains unbound”?  Answer: It follows the Chachomim. Binding is not a requirement but it’s recommended so as to beautify Hashem’s mitzvos.   Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HRzbd KGiwtwZABosLW fm5Qh-9DzaLv/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: If this is the debate, the beraisa need not have discussed a case where one removed the berries on yom tov. But we still learn something else, that according to the Chachomim there’s no dichui. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: Does dichui apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos?  Summary   Challenge: Isn’t the answer found in this mishna [and the subsequent discussion]?  If he covered [the blood] and it was uncovered [by the wind], he need not cover it again. If it was covered by the wind, he must cover it himself.  Rabbah bar bar Chana: Only if it was uncovered after it was covered by the wind, but as long as it remains covered, he need not cover it. The question was raised: Why would one be required to cover it after it was uncovered by the wind, it was already nidche when it was covered the first time!  Rav Papa: We see from here that dichui doesn’t apply to mitzvos.   Resolution: Rabbi Yirmiyah’s inquiry was made regarding the strength of Rav Papa’s statement. Was he certain that dichui doesn’t apply to mitzvos even when this results in leniency [such as pronouncing the snipped hadassim kosher (26.5)], or was he uncertain and he therefore said it only when the result was a stringency [to require the covering of blood].  Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:  “Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok: If one transgresses the laws of Yom Tov to remove the berries that grew on his hadassim, it is possul. Chachomim: It is kosher.” We can say that ‘lulav ein tzarich agad’ [the lulav need not be ‘made’ by tying it together with the hadassim and aravos], but even if it does need to be ‘made’, the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos does not apply to lulav as well. Thus, Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok holds that dichui applies to mitzvos [and since the hadassim were possul with the advent of yom tov, they can no longer become kosher], while the Chachomim hold that dichui does not apply to mitzvos.   Response: No, everyone agrees that dichui does not apply to mitzvos, they argue over whether the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos applies to lulav or not. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  The hadas must have three leaves growing in one row.   Summary   Rav Kahana: Even two [in one row] and one [in the row beneath] is kosher.  Rav Acha brei d’Rava would seek out specifically such hadassim because it came from Rav Kahana’s mouth (we don’t pasken this way).   Mar bar Ameimar to Rav Ashi: My father would call such a hadas, a hadas shoteh (Shoteh means something that’s out of ordinary).   Beraisa: If most of its leaves fell out but a minority remained, it is kosher, on condition that the braided effect remained.  Challenge: This is a self-contradictory statement. If most of its leaves fell out, how can it remain braided?  Abayye: It is possible in the case of Egyptian Hadassim which have seven leaves in each row.  Abayye: We learn from this beraisa that Egyptian hadassim can be used, despite the fact that it has an attached name (11.2). The Torah doesn’t tell us to take hadassim but eitz avos, these are eitz avos as well.  Beraisa: If the hadassim are dried out, but three stems with [three] fresh leaves remain, it is kosher.  Rav Chisda: This fresh row must be at the top of these stems. We learned in the mishna (26.4): “If the tip is broken off, it is possul”.   Ulla bar Chinena: If the tip broke off and a little bulb grew at the tip, it is kosher.  Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: If the tip broke off before yom tov and the bulb grew on yom tov, what is the law? Does dichui (once it was possul when yom tov came in, it can no longer become kosher) apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos? This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   Mishna:  A stolen or dried out hadas is possul.  If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas, it is possul.  If the tip is broken off, or the leaves are broken (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, others explain that the leaves are drooping downward) it is possul.  If its berries are more numerous than leaves, it’s possul (because it’s lacking in hadar). If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov (because he is fixing the hadassim).   Gemara:   Beraisa: “Anaf eitz avos” This means a branch that is covered in plaited leaves; it must refer to the hadas.   Challenge: Perhaps it means an olive branch which is also covered in leaves.  Resolution: The olive leaves do not lie on the twig and cannot be called “avos”.   Challenge: Perhaps it means dulva?   Resolution: Its leaves do not cover the branch.  Challenge: Perhaps it means hirduf (which does fulfill all the requirements)?   Rava: (26.2) It states “The ways of the Torah are sweet and all of its paths are peace” but the hirduf’s leaves are pointed like thorns. (Although the Torah sometimes requires us to sacrifice, in general, its ways are pleasant and this cannot be the meaning of anaf eitz avos).  Abayye: We learn that from another verse, “The Torah is Truth and Pleasantness”  Beraisa: [The hadas is identified because it’s] braided and like a chain; that’s the hadas.   Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: Anaf- Eitz means that the anaf (what comes from the tree) is the same as the eitz (the wood of the branch); that’s the hadas whose berries taste like its branch.  Beraisa: A hadas which is avos is kosher. If it’s not avos, it’s possul.   Question: Which hadas is avos?   Response: If it has three leaves growing in one row. (This is how Tosfos explains it, and this is what we follow in practice. Rashi explains that there should be three leaves coming out of one stem). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here Summary We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.” Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4, so that it rises a tefach above the others. Rabbi Parnach quoting Rabbi Yochanan: The shedra must reach 4 tefachim. Challenge: We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim so that it can be shaken, is kosher.” Resolution: It should be read as: “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.” The extra tefach can either include the leaves (Shmuel) or include only the area of the shedra (Rabbi Yochanan). Challenge: Beraisa: “The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4”. It seems to include the area of the leaves as well! Resolution: It means the shedra itself should be 4 tefachim. Beraisa: “The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4. Rabbi Tarfon: The hadas and aravah should be a full amah [although we can be lenient and use an amah] of 5 tefachim”. Rava: It is difficult to find hadassim with 3 tefachim of plaited leaves and Rabbi Tarfon expects us to find ones with 5 tefachim?! When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel he explained: Rabbi Tarfon’s intention was that the hadas and aravah should be measured with larger tefachim, as if a 6 tefach amah is only 5 tefachim, making each tefach a tefach and one fifth. Challenge: But then Shmuel is contradicting himself. Rabbi Yehuda quoted Shmuel as saying that the hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim. But Rav Huna quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon [that the hadas and aravah should be 3 and ⅗] Resolution: Shmuel was not precise. Challenge: You can’t be imprecise and round off to a lower number (6.5) which would result in a leniency! When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel he explained: Rabbi Tarfon’s intention was that the hadas and aravah should be measured with smaller tefachim, as if a 5 tefach amah is actually tefachim, making 3 tefachim only 2 ½ tefachim. Challenge: But then Shmuel is still contradicting himself. Rabbi Yehuda quoted Shmuel as saying that the hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim. But Rav Huna quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon [that the hadas and aravah should be 2 and ½], Resolution: Shmuel was not precise, in a more stringent manner. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is  Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem  Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary  We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “If the leaves are broken off, the lulav is possul. If the leaves are spread away from the center, it’s kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be tied together and not allowed to spread out.”.  Rav Papa: Broken off - means it’s like a broom, “chufya” (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, according to Tosfos, it means that each leaf was separated. There’s a third pshat that the leaves are drooping downward).  Spread out - means that the leaves fan out.   Rav Papa inquired: What if the ‘tiyomes’ (the central twin leaf) is split? (According to Tosfos, and most poskim, it means that it’s split all the way down to the spine, some say that it means most of the leaves are split on top. Others say it means even the most minute split in the middle of the top leaf, and we try to follow this l’katchilal).  Response: “Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Yehishua ben Levi: If the tiyomes is torn out, it is possul”. It seems that the same law would apply to a split tiyomes.   Response: Not necessarily. It could be that it is only possul when the tiyomes is missing entirely.   Ikka D’omri [Some say]: “Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Yehishua ben Levi: If the tiyomes is split, it’s as if it is torn out, and it is possul”.   Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda from Rabbi Tarfon: The word kapos which is used by the Torah with regard to lulav to denote branches, can also mean tied together; this teaches that the lulav must be tied.”   Ravina to Rav Ashi: How do we know that Kapos Temarim refer to Lulavim? Perhaps it means the stage called Charusa when the leaves stiffen?  Rav Ashi: Charusa can no longer be tied together, and the word kapos implies that it must be tied [even if we don’t accept Rabbi Yehuda’s view that it must be tied, it still should be capable of being tied].   Challenge: Perhaps a block of wood from the trunk of the palm tree should be used [since it’s a block, it is certainly tied together as strongly as possible].  Resolution: Something that can be tied together must have been loose, but a block is tied forever. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is  Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem  Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=  Summary   We learned (24.4) “If the tip of the lulav is broken off, it is possul”.   Rav Huna: This is only if it was broken off, but if the tip is split, it is kosher (although we are stringent nowadays with any minor split in the center twin leaves, most poskim consider it kosher unless it’s split down to the spine).  Challenge: But we learned in a beraisa: A bent lulav [at an acute angle], or one that is thorny (or shrunk), or split, or crooked [at an obtuse angle]; similar to a scythe, it is possul. If the lulav is like a branch, it is possul. If it is beginning to become hardened like a branch, it is kosher.   Rav Papa: A split lulav is possul when it is split like a Himnak (a pruning fork which has a “V” shape).   A crooked lulav similar to a scythe is possul:   Rava: If it’s bent backwards at an obtuse angle, it is kosher, that’s how it grows.  Rav Nachman: If it’s bent to the side, it’s as if it is bent frontwards. Some say, backwards (in practice we’re stringent).   Rava: A lulav which has leaves only on one side, is possul. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rava: An Esrog must be Hadar. According to Rabbi Yehuda a lulav must not be Hadar. Summary Challenge: Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t hold that an esrog must be hadar. Beraisa: “One cannot add to the 4 minim just as one may not subtract from them. If one does not have an esrog he can’t use a plum, pomegranate or a different fruit. If [the minim ] are wilted they’re kosher, but if they’re [completely] dried out, they’re possul. Rabbi Yehuda: Even if they’re completely dried out they’re kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It happened in the big cities that they would bequeath their lulavim for generations. Chachomim: That’s no proof! They didn’t have anything else!” We see here that Rabbi Yehuda approved of using a dried out esrog, which is not hadar. Resolution: That part of the beraisa is discussing only the lulav. We learned: One cannot add to the 4 minim just as one may not subtract from them. Question: This is obvious? Response: Since Rabbi Yehuda says “a lulav must be bound” we would think that the extra min is not counted. We learned: If one does not have an esrog he can’t use a peach, pomegranate or a different fruit. Question: This is obvious? Response: One might want to use a different fruit so that the necessity for an esrog is not forgotten, but it might cause a ruination if people become attached to using different fruit. Beraisa: An old esrog is possul. Rabbi Yehuda holds it is kosher. This clearly disproves Rava’s premise (25.3) that Rabbi Yehuda agrees an esrog must be hadar. Challenge: An esrog does need to be hadar, as we learn in the mishna: “If it is green like a vegetable* [cress] (and it doesn’t have the potential to ripen and become yellow) it is kosher according to Rabbi Meir but possul according to Rabbi Yehuda.” Isn’t that because Rabbi Yehuda holds it must be hadar? Resolution: No, it’s because it must be a finished product, and if it was cut when so green, it will never ripen. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos *https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fP3Su4uJcWOLcded4SKUzZvqGzxHaZ6w/view?usp=sharing* * Tosfos: The word Yerek can be used to denote yellow, green and blue. Here it means green. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning is Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: A dried out lulav is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher. Rava: An Esrog can certainly not be dried out because it must be “hadar - handsome”. Their debate is only regarding a lulav: the question is if it’s compared to esrog or not. Challenge: We learned in the mishna (24.4) “Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav must be tied together”. Isn’t the reason so that it should be hadar? Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda has a different reason, as we learned: “Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rabbi Tarfon: The word kapos which is used by the Torah with regard to lulav to denote branches, can also mean tied together; this teaches that the lulav must be tied.” Challenge: But we learned: “Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav must be bound with its kind”. Isn’t that because the lulav has to be handsome? Response: No, after all, Rava taught: “It can be bound even with a bark or root of its own kind.” These are obviously not hadar. The reason a lulav must be bound with its own kind is because according to Rabbi Yehuda, lulav tzarich agad (25.1), since that’s the case, binding it with another kind would mean that you’re taking 5 minim instead of 4. (Tosfos adds that the minim must be taken derech gedeilasan, so if a lulav does not require binding, we wouldn’t be interested in a reed wound around it that is in horizontal position, since it’s not derech gedeilasan, and not part of the mitzvah. But since a lulav must be bound, the ‘binder’ must be horizontal, thus if a reed is used, it would be considered a fifth min). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by: Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= A stolen sukkah or one built on the street: Rabbi Eliezer: It’s possul. Chachomim: It’s kosher. Summary All agree that if wood was stolen and used as schach, the sukkah is kosher and he merely owes the value of the stolen wood*. We know this, because the law of “a stolen sukkah” is taught together with the law of “a sukkah built on the street”. A sukkah built in the street is not on his land, so too a stolen sukkah is not one built on his land with stolen materials but a case where someone else’s sukkah is actually seized. An old woman came before Rav Nachman with a complaint, she said that the Reish Galusa and all the rabbonim of his household were using a stolen sukkah, because the Reish Galusa’s slaves had taken wood from her fields and built the sukkah with it. She cried out but Rav Nachman paid no attention to her. She said “I’m a woman whose father [Avraham Avinu] had 318 servants, and you daon’t pay attention to me?” Rav Nachman: She’s just a loudmouth, she’s only entitled to the value of the wood. Ravina (he came after Rav Nachman): A stolen wooden beam that was built into the sukkah is included in the takanah of Marish. We might think that since a beam is hard to find and the sukkah is not permanent, the takanah shouldn’t apply, so we learn that during the seven days of sukkos it is included in the takanah. But after yom tov the beam must be returned. But if it was attached with clay, he may pay with money and keep the beam. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3E aASEngSTGybV osnFgHIfnpHaAqv/view?usp=sharing * Rashi: Here there is yiush, shinui maaseh - shinui shem as well as takanas hashavim, and so the wood must not be returned, only its value. When we learned above (22.5) that a stolen sukkah cannot be used, it was referring to a portable sukkah in which the entire sukkah was stolen. Tosfos: A stolen sukkah that is disqualified d’orayso may be referring to a sukkah made of stolen wood since it’s not an actual shinui and is only considered as belonging to the thief because of takanas hashavim. There is another case where a sukkah can be considered stolen, when someone builds a sukkah on his neighbor’s lot, when the neighbor uses it, he is considered a thief. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Rav Huna instructed the hadassim merchants to have the gentile farmers cut the hadassim rather than cut them themselves. Generally speaking, gentiles steal land, but land can never be considered “stolen” and still belongs to its original owner. The hadassim though, can be stolen. So if the gentile cuts it, the yiush can take place and then the ownership is transferred to the merchants. But if the merchants cut it, they won’t be able to use it. While they would have yiush, there would be no transfer of ownership. There is also no “transformation of the stolen object” because “a lulav need not be bound” (10.1). Even if a lulav does require binding, binding alone cannot be considered a “transformation of the object”. There is no name change here since hadassim are called hoshanos even before they’re used for sukkos. Beraisa: A stolen sukkah or one built on the street: Rabbi Eliezer: It’s possul. Chachomim: It’s kosher. Rav Nachman: They’re discussing a case where the owner’s sukkah was seized. Rabbi Eliezer follows his opinion that another’s sukkah cannot be used [even with permission]. According to the opinion that land can be stolen, it’s another’s sukkah. But even according to the opinion that land cannot be stolen, it’s like a borrowed sukkah which is also possul according to Rabbi Eliezer. The Chachomim follow their opinion that another’s sukkah can be used. Since land cannot be stolen, it is like a borrowed sukkah and it is kosher. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Gemara: The mishna does not differentiate between the first day and the rest of yom tov. Question: A dried out lulav which is possul because it is not hadar, is indeed possul for the entire yom tov. But if a lulav is only possul based on the possuk “v’lakachta lachem bayom harishon - take for yourselves on the first day” then it would only be possul on the first day. A stolen lulav is seemingly disqualified based on this verse, so why does the mishna lump it together with a dried out lulav? Response: Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: A stolen lulav is possul because it it a “mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah - a mitzvah made possible by an aveirah”,* which is problematic based on the possuk “You bring stolen animals as well as lame animals” - just as a lame animal cannot be brought as a korban, a stolen animal cannot be brought as a korban either - even after yiush. However, it would seem that only before yiush a stolen korban would be problematic - as the possuk says “adam ki yakriv mikem”, but after yiush the thief has acquired ownership of the animal, so why is it rejected as a korban? It must be because it’s a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1txAydtWGq14KQUlKDLRKuC9ranmLKWtq/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: Although this principle is learned from korban, it is applied to all mitzvos d’orayso as is evident from the gemara that one cannot make a bracha on the mitzvah of challah made from stolen wheat. Rashash: Why is it necessary to bring proof from another gemara, we have proof from our gemara too! Besides, from that gemara we only learn that a bracha cannot be made, but not that the mitzvah is disqualified? Tosfos: Mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah only applies to a mitzvah that is made possible by an aveirah - such as a stolen lulav which the thief wouldn’t have, had he not stolen it. But this principle cannot be applied to an avodah zarah lulav since the sin of avodah zarah has no bearing on the mitzvah of lulav. However there’s a problem with this chiddush because in Pesachim Matzah from tevel is disqualified from a possuk when it can actually be classified as a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary The Beraisa continues: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property to the government: 1. Because they keep paid promissory notes (which they then collect a second time, Hakadosh Baruch Hu takes away their property because of their dishonest practices). 2. Because they lend money at interest (they have money and the opportunity to practice chesed, but instead lend out their money in a prohibited fashion). 3. Because they don’t protest evil (rich men have clout and the ability to influence people, a Jewish millionaire should know that Hashem gave him money only to influence the Jewish people and draw them close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, if he fails to do so he will become a pauper). 4. Because they pledge charity in public but do not pay up. Rav: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property: 1. Because they withhold wages from their laborers. 2. Because they rob their laborers by not paying at all. 3. Because they get out of paying taxes, placing the burden on less connected individuals. 4. Because they’re arrogant; arrogance is worse than all these things combined. [To end off the perek on a good note]: But regarding the humble it states: “The humble ones will inherit the earth and enjoy great peace”. END OF PEREK 🍾 Mazel Tov! 🥂 Mishna: A stolen or dried out lulav [or any of the four species] is possul. If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas (which must be burned), it is possul (because it is considered ashes and does not have the proper shiur). If the tip is broken off,* or the leaves are broken (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, others explain that the leaves are drooping downward) it is possul. If the leaves are spread away from the center, it’s kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be tied together and not allowed to spread out. Palms from Har Habarzel [which have short leaves], are kosher. A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l22EVaQoWIcL8XMXCqggWCZeYVuT-FNc/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: 1. This refers to the tips of most of the top leaves. 2. It refers to the Tiyomes [the two center “twin leaves”]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad sign for the gentiles, a lunar eclipse is a bad sign for (enemies of the) Jews, because while the gentiles count by the sun, the Jews count by the moon. If there is a partial eclipse on the eastern side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the east, if it’s on the western side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the west. If it’s in the middle, it’s a bad sign for the whole world. If the face of the sun is changed and looks like blood, it means war. If the sun seems grey, dark and wooly, it’s a sign of famine. If the sun looks like both, it’s a sign of both. If the eclipse takes place when the sun is about to set, it means the misfortune will come after some time. If it takes place immediately after the sun rises, it means the misfortune will be immediate. Some say, the other way around. Whenever there is retribution to the nations, there is also retribution on their gods, as it states “I will punish all the gods of egypt” (most places of idolatry have disappeared). But when Yisroel do the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu they need not fear anything as it states in a verse. Beraisa: The sun is smitten because of four things (when there’s an eclipse, it is these four areas especially that people should investigate): 1. If a great man is not mourned properly (it means that people don’t appreciate the gedolim enough). 2. If a betrothed girl cried out and was ignored (if people don’t react with a great wave of indignation against wickedness). 3. Homosexuality (the Jewish nation must enlist an army and go out to war against gay rights). 4. When two brothers are killed together (It’s referring to a specific incident, it means that our reactions must reflect the severity of the crime). There are four things that cause the luminaries to be eclipsed: 1. If people write mean notes defaming their fellow Jews to the government (for instance if they decry the lack of human rights in Israel while ignoring what the Russian government does). 2. People who testify falsely. 3. People who raise sheep and goats in Eretz Yisroel (they graze on the lands and ruin the fields, these people are considered robbers). 4. Those who chop down fruit trees (fruit trees are an important blessing from Hakadosh Baruch Hu). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary We learned (23.6) “It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face”. Question: It’s like who pours a kettle on whose face? Response: It is clarified in the beraisa: “It’s like the master pours a kettle on his servant’s face and says to the servant, I don’t want to be served by the likes of you” (so when it rains on sukkos, especially on the first night, we’re supposed to think that perhaps we’re being negligent in our national duties. Perhaps we should be doing more to bring our brethren back to Torah. The mishna spares its words and this lesson is in the mishna so it must be very important). Now begins a discussion about different signs and omens in nature. Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad omen for the world. It’s like a king who removes the lamp and leaves his servants in darkness (although it is possible to calculate these matters, it can still serve as an impetus for reflection and improvement. Yom Kippur can also be calculated). Beraisa: Rabbi Meir: When the luminaries (the moon and stars; sometimes binary stars eclipse each other for short periods, or sometimes there’s an occlusion caused by the moon) are smitten it is a bad omen for enemies of Jews (it means Jews) because they’re accustomed to suffering. It’s like when the teacher comes into class with a big whip, it’s the kid who usually gets hit who worries most (because Hashem loves us he punishes for each infraction, no one tries to clean the city dump, only the nicest neighborhoods get cleaned). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Rava: Drinking vessels may remain in the sukkah (they don’t get soiled and are in constant use) but eating vessels (Rashi: used plates. Tosfos: pots from which individual portions are served. Both explanations are true l’halacha) should remain outside of the sukkah. A clay pitcher and water bucket should remain outside of the sukkah. A lamp should be outside of the sukkah if it’s a low sukkah (which may burn down and he’ll be left without a sukkah) but in the sukkah if it has a high roof. We learned (23.6) “one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain” Beraisa: This refers to a porridge of chopped barley (a food that spoils quickly, Rashi). Abayye was sitting in Rav Yosef’s sukkah. The wind blew down some splinters from the schach. Rav Yosef said, remove my things from the sukkah. Abayye asked him didn’t we learn that one may only leave once a porridge would spoil? Rav Yosef explained that since he was a finicky fellow, a minor discomfort was equal to the discomfort experienced by another whose porridge was spoiled. Beraisa: If someone left the sukkah in middle of the meal due to rain, he may remain in the house until the end of the meal. If he left the sukkah to sleep in the house due to rain, he need not return to the sukkah until “yeor”. Question: Does yeor mean until he awakens, even after dawn, or does it mean when the sun comes up? Response: The beraisa continues: “until yeor and the dawn rises”. If yeor means sunrise the beraisa is needlessly repeating itself, we thus conclude that it means until he awakens and the sun rises. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored לרגל יום היארצייט של מורינו הגאון הצדיק חסיד שבכהונה רבינו אביגדור ב"ר ישראל הכהן זצ"ל, כ"ז ניסן תשס"א לפ"ק זכותו יגן עלינו Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary We learned (23.4) “A child who doesn’t need his mother is obligated in the laws of sukkah”. Question: Which child is considered to no longer need his mother? Rabbi Yannai’s Beis Midrash: If he no longer needs his mother to wipe him after taking care of his needs. Rabbi Shimon: If he doesn’t call out “Mother, mother!” upon awakening. Challenge: Even bigger children do that sometimes? Resolution: It means he doesn’t call out persistently. We learned (23.4) “Children are not obligated in sukkah. It happened that the daughter in law of Shammai Hazaken gave birth, so he broke open the ceiling above the crib and put schach over the baby. Challenge: Would the mishna bring an incident to contradict? (When the mishna brings an incident, it’s to illustrate a law, not to contradict it). Resolution: A few words should be added to the Mishna, it should read: “Children are not obligated in sukkah. Shammai (not Beis Shammai) disagrees. It happened etc.” Mishna: On all seven days of Yom Tov, the Sukkah should be his fixed place while his home should be used casually. If rain comes down, one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain. [Here the mishna instructs us how to leave the sukkah when necessary]. It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face. Gemara: Beraisa: How does one make the sukkah his fixed place? If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks and spends time in the sukkah. Question: What is the source? Beraisa: Teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) – one must treat the sukkah like his home. If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks, spends time and learns (sharp learning, like the word shanein) in the sukkah. Challenge: But we learned from Rava: Chumash and Halacha can be learned in the sukkah, but in depth learning should be inside the home. Resolution: They stayed in the sukkah to review (they didn’t have seforim and they would review a lot), but for meditation or analysis they would go into the house. This is like Rava and Rami bar Chama, before they entered Rav Chisda’s shiur, they first ran through the gemara together and then they analyzed it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= A certain word was taught by one beraisa to exclude women from the laws of sukkah, while a different beraisa uses the same word to include women in the laws of Yom Kippur. The gemara explains that actually the law is a halacha l’Moshe misinai and the possuk is only an asmachta. Summary Question: Which law is derived from the possuk and which from the existing halacha? Additional Challenge: Neither a possuk nor a halacha is necessary. We know that woman are excluded from sukkah because it is a time-bound mitzvah which women are exempt from. And we know that women are included in the laws of Yom Kippur from teaching of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav: Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav, and it was also taught in Rabbi Yishmael’s Beis Medrash: When the possuk states “A man or woman” they’re equally included in all punishments of the Torah, which means that all restrictions of the Torah [including Yom Kippur] apply equally. Abayye: Sukkah is the one derived from Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. Since there is a principle of teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) we would think that women are included in sukkah just as they live with their husbands in their homes. Rava: [Another reason the halacha is necessary regarding sukkah]. One might think that the teaching of “The Fifteenth” (22.3) would include women in all laws of sukkah. Question: Since the possuk of “All the citizens” is not necessary for excluding women from the laws of sukkah, what does it teach? Response: Geirim are included in the laws of sukkah. Citizens would exclude Geirim, “All the citizens” includes Geirim as well. Question: Why is a possuk necessary to teach us that women are included in the laws of Yom Kippur, since it can be derived from the teaching of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav? Response: The possuk is still necessary to teach that the law of “Tosfos Yom Hakippurim” applies to women as well even though it is not included in the punishment. Challenge: The beraisa (23.4) teaches that children are obligated in sukkah, but the mishna (23.4) teaches that they’re exempt? Resolution: The beraisa is referring to children who are chinuch -aged [and thus have a rabbinic obligation to sit in the sukkah]. Challenge: But the beraisa derives this from a possuk, how can it be referring to a rabbinic obligation? Resolution: Indeed. The possuk is merely an asmachta. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Mishna: If one’s head and most of his body is in the sukkah, while his table is in his house; Beis Shammai disqualify it while Beis Hillel permit it. Beis Hillel to Beis Shammai: When the sages of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai went to visit Rabbi Yochanan ben Hachoranis they saw him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukkah, and his table in his house, and they didn’t tell him anything (in those days they wouldn’t hold back criticism if someone was doing something wrong). Beis Shammai replied: The sages did speak up, they said “If this is how you sit in a sukkah, you never fulfilled the mitzvah. Women, slaves and children are not obligated in sukkah. A child who doesn’t need his mother (this will be explained in the gemara) is obligated. [Beis Shammai is more stringent], it happened that the daughter in law of Shammai Hazaken gave birth, so he broke open the ceiling above the crib (Shammai was not the type to be deterred by something like a roof) and put schach over the baby. Gemara: Question: What is the source [that women are not obligated]? Response: Beraisa: It states “All the citizens [must sit in a sukkah]”. The word “the” excludes women, the word “all” includes children. Challenge: So “All citizens” [without “the”] would include women? But in the matter of Yom Kippur we learn the opposite that “The citizens” includes women in the laws of Yom Kippur, whereas “citizens” alone would exclude them? Rabbah: The halacha (singular: see Tosfos) was known and not derived from the possuk, the Chachomim merely used the possuk as an asmachta. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by Issak Rodriguez Baruch Hashem! In gratitude to Hakodosh Boruch Hu for the making the lectures of HaRav Yisroel Brog, Shlit"a available online. May this gemarah learning be for the merit of the Rav, I've learned so much from him. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: Hillel Hazakein had 80 talmidim. (There’s a remarkable lesson here, there were 80 talmidim but only 2 are named. Throughout the ages there were very many great men who are not known to us at all. There were 1.2 million nevi’im in our history and yet we only know the names of about 10. The gemara is not a history of the tzadikim, that’s written in the records of Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Jews don’t labor in order to be remembered for posterity, all our labor is for Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Thirty were worthy of nevuah like Moshe Rabeinu. Thirty were worthy of having the sun stop for them like Yehoshua. Twenty were in between. The greatest of them was Yonason ben Uziel, the smallest was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (some say it means the smallest in age). They said about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: He did not neglect (he studied it by heart) Mikra, Mishna or Gemara (this means the explanation of mishnayos, it was an integral part of Torah Shebaal Peh only it was not memorized word for word like the mishnah. The wording was set in the days of Abayye and Rava and sealed by Rav Ashi). Halacha l’Moshe Misinai, Aggadic moral teachings, Dikdukim - logical inferences that can be derived from the Torah, Dikdukei Sofrim (this refers either to lessons gleaned from the shapes of the letters, or to the study of takanos chachomim), Kal Vachomer, Gezeiros Shavos, the calculations of the seasons, Gimatriyaos, stories that were told about Malochim, Sheidim, or Trees. Meshalim (these were said by the chachomim to teach various ethical lessons but they were set in story form to capture interest) of poor laborers [laundrymen], of foxen (such as the story of the fox and the lion, or the fox and the fish). Great things and Small things: Great things refer to Maaseh Merkavah. Small things refer to the discussions of Abayye and Rava (although they didn’t live yet, all their discussions had already been discussed and debated). This is what the possuk means: “I have plenty to give to those who love me, and I will fill their treasure houses”. (When a man learns more Torah, it’s Hakadosh Baruch Hu giving him the most important wealth. For more on this subject, see Toras Avigdor on Bar Mitzvah). If this was the youngest disciple, then those of a previous generations were surely even greater: They said about Yonason ben Uziel (they began calling people with the title “Rabbi” only at the time of the churban, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai lived until after the churban. The Nasi was already called Rabban some time before): When he would sit and study Torah it was with such a fire that any bird flying overhead was burned. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rabbi Eliezer never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbi. Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer once spent Shabbos in the Upper Galil. They asked him 30 questions in the laws of sukkah. Regarding 12 questions he said that he had heard and gave responses, but regarding the other 18 he merely said that he hadn’t heard. Rabbi Yosi B’Rebbi Yehuda: It was the other way around. He responded to 18, and said that he hadn’t heard regarding the other 12. They said to him: You don’t say anything on your own? Only what you heard? Rabbi Eliezer: You’re forcing me to make a statement that I didn’t hear from my rebbe (he explained to them some of his ways so that they would be able to emulate him. He was so great that he was not concerned with kavod): No one ever came to the Beis Medrash before me (that was a tough thing then - not like today!). I never slept in the Beis Medrash (which is permitted for Torah students) nor did I even nap there. I was always the last to leave from the Beis Medrash. I never spoke secular conversation. And I never said anything that I didn’t hear from my rebbe. (He had other ways too, but this was a bit that he revealed. When Rabbi Eliezer died, he wept, saying that his talmidim only heard from him a drop from the great ocean of knowledge that he had). Now we go to the Rebbi of Rabbi Eliezer: They said about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai: He never spoke unnecessary speech. He never walked 4 amos without thinking in Torah and wearing Tefillin. No one ever came to the Beis Medrash before him. He never slept in the Beis Medrash nor even napped there. He didn’t think in DIvrei Torah in unclean places (which was a great accomplishment for someone like him. There is a special dispensation in halacha for someone who cannot stop himself from thinking divrei torah to think it in the bathroom as well, but Rabban Yochanan controlled his thoughts anyway). He was always the last to leave from the Beis Medrash. He could never be found “doing nothing”, he was always sitting and learning. He would always run to the door to grab the mitzvah of opening it for his talmidim. And he never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbe (he was a talmid of Hillel and Shammai). He never said “It’s time to stop learning and go home” (rather, he would stop teaching and they would understand on their own that it’s time to go home) except for Erev Pesach (When they had to go home to bring the korban Pesach) and Erev Yom Kippur (when there’s a mitzvah to eat a meal). And so too, did his disciple Rabbi Eliezer comport himself. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

22.6 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (13 lines Up) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer once went to spend shabbos in the upper Galil in the sukkah of Yochanan b’rebbe Ilai in Caesari, and some say, Caesarion. The sun began to shine into the sukkah and it became uncomfortable. Yochanan asked whether he would be permitted to spread a sheet out over the sukkah. Rabbi Eliezer answered the question by talking about something else: “Every shevet had a shofet of their own” [in the days of the Shoftim; after Yehoshua and Shmuel, every shevet had a chance to have their own shofet]. When half of the sukkah became filled with sunshine, Yochanan asked again. Rabbi Eliezer: Every shevet was zoche to nevi’im. Yehuda and Binyomin coronated kings by the word of the navi (I’m not sure if it means that they didn’t have nevi’im or it was in addition). [They used to recline on couches when they ate and] the sun was already reaching Rabbi Eliezer’s feet. So Yochanan didn’t ask any sheilos; he spread out a sheet. So Rabbi Eliezer lowered his talis [which was folded while he was reclining], and walked out of the sukkah. Rabbi Eliezer did not avoid the question because he didn’t want to answer but because he never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbi. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer says (22.5) that one is not permitted to sit in his fellow’s sukkah? Resolution: This story was not on sukkos. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer holds (22.5) that you shouldn’t leave home for other yomim tovim either? Resolution: It was Shabbos and the problem with spreading a sheet was building a binyan arai, a temporary structure. Challenge: Why couldn’t he answer him based on the following Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: One may only close up a window if the board is tied and hanging, but not if it’s on the floor, then it’s like making a window (shutters are permitted because it’s on hinges, here we’re talking about a separate board). Chachomim: The board can be used since it’s made for that purpose. So why couldn’t Rabbi Eliezer quote this halacha as a source for our case of spreading a sheet [which is the same type of “building” as putting a board in the window]. Resolution: The cases are not similar enough. The board may be left there forever, but not the sheet. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate