ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 37
SUKA 36-56 (End of Maseches) have been dedicated by the wife and daughters
of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of
Queens N.Y. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will
long be remembered.
(a) The Mitzvah of Sukah has a Chumra over Lulav - inasmuch as it applies
both by day and by night, whereas Lulav applies only by day.
(b) Based on this Chumra - Rebbi Yehudah learns that Sukah, like Lulav, must
be made from the four species of Lulav, exclusively.
(c) The Rabbanan object to Rebbi Yehudah's Kal va'Chomer - on the grounds
that any Kal va'Chomer that is self-defeating, is not a Kal va'Chomer. Here
too, someone who wants to build a Sukah using the prescribed materials, but
cannot find any, will end up not fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukah, and the
Torah writes "ba'Sukos Teishvu Shiv'as Yamim" (no matter with which
materials one uses!). Note: This appears to be a second argument.)
(d) Rebbi Yehudah counters their proof from the Pasuk in Nechemyah, where
Nechemyah specifically instructed the people to go and collect *olive
branches* (as well as Hadas and palm branches) - by explaining that the
olive branches were for the walls and not for the S'chach.
(a) Rava proves from this Beraisa (which teaches us that Rebbi Yehudah
requires the four species for S'chach) in conjunction with the Mishnah above
(Daf 14a), where Rebbi Yehudah permits planks (which are made from the tree-
trunk, which is not in itself, fit to be used for the four species) - that
it is not the actual four items (i.e. the Lulav, the Esrog, the Hadas and
the Aravah) that must be used, but their species, even the branches or the
(b) When Rebbi Yehudah permitted above (14a) the use of *cedar* beams - he
was referring to the Hadas, which is a type of cedar.
(c) There are ten different kinds of cedar-trees.
(a) One does not transgress 'Bal Tosif' by adding an additional kind to an
object of Mitzvah, if its sole function is to beautify it.
(b) Rabah instructed the Lulav-binders to leave the part of the Lulav that
is held in the hand, uncovered, so as not to create a Chatzitzah. Rava
however, maintained that, since the purpose of binding the Lulav was to
beautify it - it did not consitute a Chatzitzah, because, whatever is to
beautify, is not a Chatzitzah.
(c) Rabah also said that one should not pick up a Lulav with a cloth wrapped
around one's hand, because of 'Lekichah Tamah' (the acronym of
"u'Lekachtem", meaning that one should take it properly). Rava said that
taking something with a cloth is still called taking it.
(a) Rava tries to prove that holding something with the help of a third
object is considered holding it, from the Mishnah in Parah - which permits
dipping a short hyssop into the ashes of the Parah Adumah, by means of a
string that one ties to it, in spite of the fact that one is obligated to
hold the hyssop in one's hand at the time of dipping.
(b) We refute this proof however - by pointing out that there, the string is
tied to the hyssop, in which case it is considered part of it; whereas
holding the Lulav with a cloth (which is not tied to it) may well not
constitute holding it at all.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Chukas (regarding the ashes of the Parah
Adumah) "ve'Nasan Alav "*Mayim Chayim el Keli*" - that the water must be
placed into the vessel first (before the ashes).
(b) Nevertheless, the Torah write "ve'Nasan *Alav Mayim ... *" - to teach us
that, after he has added the ashes, the Kohen must then mix them together
(and during the process, the water covers the ashes).
(c) We learn from the Pasuk there "*ve'Lakchu* la'Tamei me'Afar Sereifas
ha'Chatas, *ve'Nasan* Alav ... " - that just as the Kohen must take the
ashes with his hands, so too, must he pour them with his hands.
(d) The Mishnah in Parah invalidates the ashes if they fell from the stone
tube into the water - implying that, if the Kohen poured them deliberately,
then he has fulfilled the Mitzvah, despite the fact that, as we just
learned, the Mitzvah constitutes pouring them by hand. So we see, that
taking something via a second object (even when it is not tied) is still
(a) Rabah also warns against ...
1. ... first tying the Hadasim and Aravos, and then forcing the Lulav into
the bunch, because the leaves that fall off constitute a Chatzitzah.
(b) Rabah permits smelling an Esrog of Mitzvah on Sukos, but not a Hadas -
because when people designate an object of Mitzvah for the Mitzvah, they
tend to have in mind to abstain from its main function exclusively: by an
Esrog, that means from eating it, but by a Hadas, from smelling it, as that
it its only regular function.
2. ... cutting the bottom of a Lulav that is too long whilst it is still
bound, because the leaves that are now severed from the Lulav but that
remain in the bunch, constitute a Chatzitzah. In both cases, Rava holds 'Min
be'Mino Eino Chotzetz' (an object does not constitute a Chatzitzah on the
same kind as itself).
(c) And it is for the very same reason that he permits smelling a growing
Hadas on the Yom-Tov or Shabbos of Sukos (since it can be smelt equally well
without picking it), but not a growing Esrog (which he may decide to eat,
and will then have to pick).
(d) Eating a fruit directly from a tree on Shabbos or Yom-Tov constitutes
detaching, which is a Toldah of Kotzer (reaping).
(a) We take the *Lulav* in the *right* hand, and the *Esrog* in the *left* -
because the Lulav comprises *three* kinds, whereas the Hadas, only *one*.
('be'Rov Am Hadras Melech').
(b) And we recite the Berachah 'Al Netilas *Lulav*', and not 'Al Netilas
*Esrog*' - because the Lulav is the highest of the species.
(c) Lifting up the Esrog will not really achieve anything - because what
Rabah means is that the Lulav is the tallest of its group (see Tosfos DH
(a) According to Beis Hillel, one shakes the Lulav both times that 'Hodu'
is mentioned (i.e. after 'Mah Ashiv', and before the final Berachah).
(b) And one also shakes at 'Ana Hashem Hoshi'a Na' - according to Beis
Shamai, also by 'Ana Hashem Hatzlichah Na'.
(c) Rebbi Akiva saw Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua shaking only at 'Ana
Hashem Hoshi'a Na', even though the rest of the people shook also at 'Ana
Hashem Hatzlichah Na'.
(d) The Tana can safely start speaking about the Mitzvah of shaking without
first introducing the concept - because he has already done so (however
briefly) on 29b, when he gave the size of the Lulav as three Tefachim plus
the amount that one needs, to shake it.
(a) When the Kohen waved the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the two lambs of the
Shalmei Tzibur on Shavu'os - he placed the breads on top of the live lambs
(since the Torah writes "Al Sh'nei Chevasim") and waved them in all four
directions, up and down.
(b) The Torah does indeed write "*Al* Lechem ha'Bikurim" - and the Gemara in
Menachos will deal with that.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan explains that one waves them in all four directions to
acknowledge that Hashem owns all four directions (i.e. the whole world), and
up and down to acknowledge that he also owns Heaven and earth - and they
quoted Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina as saying that the former is to dispel
harmful winds, and the latter, harmful dews.
- "Asher Hunaf" - means which was waved in all four directions.
- "va'Asher Huram" - up and down.
(a) We learn from here that - even 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' have the power to
(b) 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' - constitutes the final stage of a Mitzvah which does
not even affect the performance of the Mitzvah (i.e. the Kaparah is
effective anyway, whether one has performed this final stage or not).
(c) Chazal instituted that the Lulav too, like the lambs and the loaves on
Shavu'os, should be waved in all directions, up and down (alternatively,
that shaking the Lulav also has the power to dispel harmful winds and
harmful dews - Agados Maharsha).
(a) As he shook the Lulav, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov used to say 'This is an
arrow in the eye of the Satan (meaning that our love of the Mitzvah of Lulav
- in performing additional Mitzvos not prescribed by the Torah)
incapacitates the Satan (see also Agadas Maharsha).
(b) One should one not however, do that - because, when you incite someone,
you cause him to fight back.