27.3 - Sukkah Daf 33 B (13 lines Dn)

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