THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) ESROG OF "ORLAH": NOT "LACHEM," OR LACKING ITS SHI'UR?
QUESTION: The Mishnah (34b) states that an Esrog of Orlah may not be used
for the Mitzvah. The Gemara asks why such an Esrog is Pasul, and cites the
answer of two Amora'im -- it is either because such an Esrog is not
permitted to be eaten ("Ein Bo Heter Achilah") and thus it is not considered
"Lachem," or because one has no monetary ownership of an item of Orlah ("Ein
Bo Din Mamon"), and thus it is not considered "Lachem." The former Pesul is
also cited as the reason one may not use an Esrog of Terumah Teme'ah.
2) OWNERSHIP OF AN ITEM WHICH IS WORTH LESS THAN A "PRUTAH"
Why is the Gemara looking for the reason why an Esrog of Orlah cannot be
used? Fruits of Orlah must be burned, as must fruits of Terumah Teme'ah, and
thus they should be considered burned to ashes already and lacking the
requisite Shi'ur -- "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei!"
In fact, it would have been much more appropriate for the Gemara to have
cited the Pesul of "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei" because that makes the Esrog
Pasul for all seven days of Sukos. The Pesul of "Lachem" (one cannot eat it,
or one has no monetary ownership of the item) applies only on the first day!
Why does the Gemara give a secondary reason for the Pesul of an Esrog of
Orlah and of Terumah Teme'ah and leave out the primary reason, which has
implications for all seven days of Sukos?
ANSWERS: The Rishonim offer a number of different approaches to this
(a) TOSFOS (DH l'FI) answers that the Gemara could have said that an Esrog
of Orlah is Pasul because of "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei." The point of "Ein
Bo Heter Achilah" or "Ein Bo Din Mamon" does not add anything to our
understanding of why an Esrog of Orlah is Pasul. The only reason why the
Gemara records this discussion is to explain the case in the end of the
Mishnah of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni, according to Rebbi Meir who holds that
Ma'aser Sheni belongs to Shamayim ("Mamon Gavoha"). According to the opinion
that says that an Esrog must have a "Heter Achilah," an Esrog of Ma'aser
Sheni is valid because it may be eaten (albeit only in Yerushalayim).
According to the opinion that says that an Esrog must have a "Din Mamon," an
Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is Pasul according to Rebbi Meir, because the person
does not have full ownership of it.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Lulav 8:9, and in Perush ha'Mishnayos here) explains
that an Esrog that has no "Heter Achilah" is indeed Pasul for all seven
days. He learns that the fact that it cannot be eaten not only takes it out
of the category of "Lachem," but it also takes the Esrog out of the category
of being a fruit. The Esrog must be a "Pri Etz Hadar;" if it is not edible
it is not a Pri (fruit) at all, and therefore it is Pasul.
Alternatively, the Rambam (in Mishnah Torah) means that it is not proper to
use such an Esrog for the Mitzvah since it is Asur b'Hana'ah. The Gemara
earlier (30a) cites a verse (Malachi 1:8) from which we learn that items
used for Mitzvos must be respectable, and something which is Asur b'Hana'ah
does not fall into that category (REBBI AVRAHAM MIN HA'HAR). Therefore, the
reason of "Ein Bo Heter Achilah" makes the Esrog of Orlah Pasul all seven
days, and thus it is just as good as the reason of "Ketutei Michtas
Why, though, does the Gemara mention the opinion which says that an Esrog
must have a "Din Mamon" and be legally owned in order to use it for the
Mitzvah? That reason only makes the Esrog Pasul for the first day (because
it is not "Lachem")! It must be that, as we mentioned above (a), this reason
is mentioned only to explain the end of the Mishnah, why an Esrog of Ma'aser
Sheni may not be used (according to Rebbi Meir).
(c) The KAPOS TEMARIM suggests an answer which is also found in the PISKEI
RID. When the Mishnah says that an Esrog of Orlah is Pasul, it means even an
Esrog of Orlah of Chutz la'Aretz. The owner of fruit which is Orlah grown in
Chutz la'Aretz may not eat that fruit, but he may feed it to others
(Kidushin 39b). Accordingly, the Esrog is not "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei,"
since it does not have to be burned and may even be sold. Why, then, may
such an Esrog not be used? It must be because it is not considered "Lachem"
since it may not be eaten.
Why, though, does the Gemara give that reason for an Esrog of Terumah
Teme'ah, when it could have given the reason of "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei?"
The answer, explains the Piskei Rid, is that Terumah Teme'ah is also not
"Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei," because one *may* derive benefit from it! Even
though Terumah Teme'ah must indeed be burned, it is not similar to other
Isurei Hana'ah. One may not derive any benefit from other types of Isurei
Hana'ah, even while they burn. One may, however, derive benefit from Terumah
Teme'ah as it burns (such as using it to provide light by burning it in an
oil lamp). In such a case, where there is a permissible way to derive
benefit from the forbidden item, "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei" does not apply.
However, if the Gemara is discussing an Esrog of Orlah of Chutz la'Aretz,
how does the reason that "Ein Bo Mamon" make it Pasul? A fruit of Orlah of
Chutz la'Aretz *is* considered to be legally owned, and can even be sold!
The Piskei Rid answers, as we learned above (a & b), that the reason of "Ein
Bo Mamon" is mentioned here only because it will be used by the Gemara later
to explain the case of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni.
(d) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR and the RA'AVAD (as cited by the Ritva) rule that an
Esrog of Orlah may indeed be used on the remaining days of Sukos. On the
first day it may not be used because it is not "Lachem," since it may not be
eaten, like the Gemara says.
According to their opinion, though, why is it not "Ketutei Michtas
Shi'urei?" Since it must be burned, it should be "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei"
and be Pasul for all seven days of Sukos!
The answer might be that TOSFOS (DH l'Fi) makes a point of saying that the
obligation to burn Orlah is not only mid'Rabanan, but it is even mid'Oraisa.
The Torah requires that Orlah be burned and not just buried. (The Gemara
nowhere tells us explicitly that Orlah must be burned *mid'Oraisa*, but
Tosfos suggests that this might be the case.) Why does Tosfos go to such
lengths to show that burning Orlah is a Mitzvah d'Oraisa? Perhaps Tosfos
maintains that if the Mitzvah to burn it is only mid'Rabanan, then "Ketutei
Michtas Shi'urei" will not apply. "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei" does not mean
that anything which is Asur b'Hana'ah is not considered to have a Shi'ur,
but rather it means that anything which the *Torah* commands to burn does
not have a Shi'ur. If it was only the Rabanan who required that Orlah be
burned, then it is still not considered burned and there is no Pesul of
"Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei."
Perhaps the Ba'al ha'Me'or agrees with the logic of Tosfos, that "Ketutei
Michtas Shi'urei" applies only when there is a Mitzvah d'Oraisa to burn the
item. However, he argues with Tosfos and maintains that when it comes to
Orlah, there is no Mitzvah d'Oraisa to burn it. Therefore, an Esrog of Orlah
is not Pasul because of "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei," and hence it is Pasul
only on the first day.
Similarly, Terumah Teme'ah is only Pasul on the first day. Why does "Ketutei
Michtas Shi'urei" not apply? Since Terumah of fruits (other than wine and
oil) is only mid'Rabanan, there is no Mitzvah d'Oraisa to burn an Esrog of
Terumah Teme'ah, and therefore "Ketutei Michtas Shi'urei" does not apply.
(e) The RAMBAN (in Lulav ha'Gadol) and the RITVA (34b, 35a) explain that
when the Gemara says "Ein Bo Heter Achilah," it actually means that it is
Asur b'Hana'ah and not just b'Achilah, and thus it is "Ketutei Michtas
Why does the Gemara give the reason of "Ein Bo Din Mamon?" That certainly
does not mean that it is Asur b'Hana'ah! It must be that this reason is
mentioned only to explain the case of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni (as we
explained above), and it was not meant to be an explanation for why an Esrog
of Orlah cannot be used. (In fact, the Ritva goes so far as to say that
Orlah *does* have a "Din Mamon." Even though Orlah is Asur b'Hana'ah, its
owner still has legal ownership over it. This is a subject debated by the
Rishonim in many places.)
QUESTION: The Gemara cites an argument between Rebbi Chiya bar Avin and
Rebbi Asi regarding whether one must have legal ownership ("Din Mamon") of
an Esrog, and not just be permitted to eat it ("Heter Achilah"), in order to
fulfill the Mitzvah with it. The Gemara explains that the practical
difference will be in a case of an Esrog that has a "Heter Achilah" (it may
be eaten) but does not have a "Din Mamon" (it is not legally owned by the
person). An Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni, according to Rebbi Meir, is such a case;
the Esrog may be eaten (in Yerushalayim), and yet the Esrog does not belong
to its owner, but rather to Shamayim, according to Rebbi Meir.
When the Gemara first cites this argument to explain why an Esrog of Orlah
may not be used, RASHI explains that an Esrog of Orlah does not have a "Din
Mamon" because it is not worth a Perutah ("Ein Bo Shaveh Perutah"), since it
is Asur b'Hana'ah. Consequently, it is not considered "Lachem" -- a person
cannot be considered to have ownership of such an item which has no worth.
Rashi earlier similarly implies that if an item is worth less than a Perutah
it cannot be considered to be legally owned and it is not considered
"Lachem." In the Gemara earlier (27b), the Rabanan prove that a borrowed
Sukah may be used for the Mitzvah because the verse implies that only a
Sukah in which all of Israel are able to sit is valid. In order for all of
Israel to sit in one Sukah, it must be that one person owns the Sukah and
the others fulfill their obligation by *borrowing* his Sukah. It cannot be
that they all own the Sukah collectively, Rashi asserts, because since there
are so many people, no on would own a Perutah's worth of the Sukah; it would
not be considered "Lachem" and no one could fulfill his Mitzvah with it. We
see from there that in order to be considered owned, an item must be worth
at least a Perutah.
The SEFAS EMES (30a) asks, according to Rashi, that something which is not
worth a Perutah is not considered "Lachem," why does the Gemara say that the
practical difference (whether an Esrog must be owned or not) is only in a
case of an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni? The Gemara should say a much simpler
difference -- a case of an Esrog which is worth less than a Perutah! Such an
Esrog is not "Lachem" according to the opinion which requires an Esrog to
have a "Din Mamon!"
In addition, the MINCHAS CHINUCH (325:9) and the SHA'AREI TESHUVAH (OC
482:1) ask that we know that there is a requirement for Matzah to be
"Lachem" (Pesachim 38a). But we do not find a requirement that the Matzah
must be worth at least a Perutah. Similarly, the Aravos we use for the
Arba'ah Minim are often very inexpensive and not worth a Perutah. If so, how
is it permitted to use Matzah or Aravos for the Mitzvah when they are not
worth a Perutah and not considered "Lachem?"
ANSWER: The SEFAS EMES explains that when Rashi says that something that is
not worth a Perutah is not considered owned ("Lachem"), he is referring only
to an item of Orlah, and other Isurei Hana'ah. An item which is Asur
b'Hana'ah has absolutely no value at all (for example, if one were to take a
thousand fruits of Orlah and add them together, they would still have no
value). Items which are not Asur b'Hana'ah, but merely have little value and
are worth less than a Perutah, are considered to be owned, because if one
adds them together they will come to more than a Perutah's worth and be
considered legally owned. Since such items add up to more than a Perutah
when combined with the rest of one's property, they are certainly considered
legally owned and are even considered "Lachem." (The Gemara makes such a
differentiation in Gitin 20a. See also TOSFOS RID, Sukah 41b, who permits
Aravos worth less than a Perutah.)
Why, then, does Rashi earlier (27b) say that it must be that one may use a
borrowed Sukah, because it is impossible for all of Israel to own one Sukah?
There, the Sukah is not Asur b'Hana'ah, and thus the small portion of Sukah
which each person owns should be considered legally his and "Lachem!"
Rashi cannot mean that one has no legal right over what is worth less than a
Perutah. (We find that a Nochri is even killed for stealing less than a
Perutah, Sanhedrin 61a.) He also cannot mean that what is worth less than a
Perutah lacks "Din Mamon" and is therefore not considered Lachem, for then
he would be explaining the Tana only according to the opinion that rules a
"Din Mamon" is necessary, and not according to the other Amora'im who do not
require Din Mamon. Rashi must mean something else entirely. RAV YISROEL ZEV
GUSTMAN, zt'l, explained that when we say that if a person owns something
which is worth less than a Perutah it is considered "Lachem," that refers
only to something that he owns by himself. Owning an item through a
partnership ("Shutfus") is different. In a partnership, if a person does not
own a portion equal to a Perutah or more, he does not own enough to make it
considered "Lachem." Even when someone owns more than a Perutah in a
partnership it is not fully "Lachem" (see, for instance, TOSFOS 27b DH Kol,
who argues that one does *not* fulfill a Mitzvah which requires "Lachem"
with an object that he owns in a partnership). When each person's portion
amounts to less than a Perutah's worth, and even that is only in a
partnership, it is not considered "Lachem" at all.
(For further discussion about the ownership of less than a Perutah we will
b'Ezras Hashem wait for Gitin 12b, Rashi DH Loveh.)
3) HALACHAH: THE "CHOTAM" OF AN ESROG
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (34b) states that if an Esrog has spots of blight
covering a majority of it, then it is Pasul. In the Gemara, Rava says that
if the spots are on the Chotam, then even the smallest amount will make the
Esrog Pasul. What is the Chotam?
4) HALACHAH: THE "BUCHNA" OF AN ESROG
(a) RASHI, as explained by the ROSH, says that it the Chotam is a thin
circular strip around the surface of the Esrog at the place where it begins
to slope sharply towards its point (what we call the Pitam). The Chotam is
not comprised of the entire area of the slope, but only the small strip of
area around the Esrog at the point that the slope begins.
HALACHAH: The ROSH rules that we should be Machmir and follow both the
opinions of Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel. Therefore, if an Esrog has a minimal
amount of spots on it from the point that it begins to slope, including the
area itself where the slope begins, until the Pitam, it is Pasul. (See
(b) RABEINU CHANANEL and the RIF (as explained by the Rosh) explain that the
sloping area itself, from the point where it begins to slope until the
Pitam, is called the Chotam.
(c) The RAMBAM, RITZ GE'AS, and the RAN (quoting the explanation of
"others") explain that the Chotam is the peg-like stem that holds the crown
(Shoshanta) on top of the Esrog.
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (34b) states that if the Pitam fell off, the Esrog is
Pasul. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar said
"if the Buchna fell off." What is the Buchna?
(a) RASHI, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Lulav 8:7), and the RAN (quoting the
explanation of "others") say that the Buchna is the little crown at the top
of the Lulav ("Shoshanta") and the little peg-like stem that supports it
(i.e. what we call the Pitam). Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar is not arguing with
the Mishnah, but is just explaining, in other terms, what the Mishnah means
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 648:8) rules like the Rif and Rambam, that
if the Ukatz at the bottom of the Esrog falls off, the Esrog is Pasul since
it is lacking. If, however, the ball inside the Esrog which is attached to
the Ukatz did not come out with the Ukatz (i.e. the missing Ukatz does not
leave an indentation in the Esrog), then the Esrog is valid since it is not
considered lacking (Rema there, and Mishnah Berurah 648:33-34).
(b) The RIF, RAN, and RABEINU YITZCHAK HA'LEVI cited by Rashi explain that
the Buchna is the ball at the root of the Ukatz, the piece of wood at the
bottom of the Esrog from which it hangs from the tree. If the Ukatz falls
off without the little ball which is inside the Esrog, then it is valid
because the Esrog is not Chaser, lacking, nor does it appear to be lacking.
However, if the little ball itself comes out too, then the Esrog is lacking
and it is Pasul.