Sukkah, Daf Lammed Gimmel, Part 1
Introduction
Today’s sugya deals with a concept calls "something set aside" in connection with commandments. What this means is that if something has become unfit for ritual use at the time it is meant to be used, it cannot subsequently be remedied for use. This is an abstract halakhic concept that appears several times in the Talmud, but this is one of the main passages in which it appears. Here the topic at hand is a hadas that had its top removed, rendering it unfit, but subsequently had a berry replace the top, rendering it fit again.
נקטם ראשו. תני עולא בר חיננא: נקטם ראשו ועלתה בו תמרה – כשר.
If its tip was broken off. Ulla bar Hinena taught, If its tip was broken off, and a berry grew on it, it is valid.
If the top of the hadas breaks off it is invalid. However, if a berry grows in its place the hadas is valid again because it no longer has a broken top.
בעי רבי ירמיה: נקטם ראשו מערב יום טוב ועלתה בו תמרה ביום טוב, מהו? יש דחוי אצל מצות או לא?
R. Yirmiyah asked: If the tip was broken off before the Festival, and the berry grew on it on the Festival, what [is the law]?
Do we apply the law of "set aside" to commandments or not?
The hadas was invalid when Sukkot began. Then it became valid again on the festival because a berry grew on its top. The question is whether once it was "set aside" from being valid at the beginning of the Festival it can again be valid on the festival.
ותפשוט ליה מהא דתנן: כסהו ונתגלה – פטור מלכסות, כסהו הרוח – חייב לכסות. ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: לא שנו אלא שחזר ונתגלה, אבל לא חזר ונתגלה – פטור מלכסות. והוינן בה: כי חזר ונתגלה אמאי חייב לכסות? הואיל ואידחי אידחי! ואמר רב פפא: זאת אומרת אין דחוי אצל מצות.
Let him derive this question from that which we have learned: If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it again. If the wind covered it, he must cover it again.
And Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught this only where it subsequently became uncovered, but if it did not subsequently become uncovered, he is exempt from [the duty of] covering it.
And we asked concerning this: Even if it subsequently became uncovered, why must he cover it? Once it has been set aside is it not permanently set aside?
And R. Papa said: This implies that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments?
The sugya that is brought to our discussion here is about covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal after the animal was slaughtered, as is mandated in Leviticus 17:13. If one fulfilled this mitzvah and then wind uncovered the blood, one need not cover the blood again. But if the wind covered it, he still need to cover it. This is the teaching found in Mishnah Hullin 6:4. The idea seems to be that it is a mitzvah to cover the blood, not to have the blood covered. Thus the slaughterer must cover the blood and not the wind. But if the blood is covered he need not make sure it remains covered.
Rabbah b. Bar Hana, an amora, changes this slightly, seeming to say that as long as the blood is covered, he need not cover it again. Thus if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, he need not cover it again.
The Talmud asks if the mitzvah was fulfilled by the wind covering it, why would he ever need to cover it again? Once the mitzvah has been fulfilled, it should be permanently fulfilled.
R. Papa answer that this is not so. The law of "set aside" doesn’t apply to mitzvoth. There are cases where a mitzvah might be fulfilled and then become "unfulfilled."
Returning to our sugya, the Talmud asks why R. Yirmiyah had to ask a question when R. Papa already answered it. R. Papa said that the law of "set aside" doesn’t apply to mitzvoth, so the answer should be that just because the hadas is not fit for use at the beginning of the festival does not mean that it can’t become fit for use on the festival.
We should note that this is anachronistic question R. Yirmiyah lived before R. Papa.
דרב פפא גופא מבעיא ליה: מיפשיט פשיט ליה דאין דחוי אצל מצות, לא שנא לקולא ולא שנא לחומרא, או דלמא: ספוקי מספקא ליה, לחומרא – אמרינן, לקולא – לא אמרינן. – תיקו.
The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments, irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency?
The question stands.
The idea that "the laws of ‘set aside’ does not apply to commandments was applied by R. Papa to the case of covering the blood in order to create a stringency although the wind already covered the blood he must cover it again should it become uncovered. R. Yirmiyah knew that R. Papa had stated this rule in such a situation but that was in order to be stringent (he must cover the blood again). But R. Yirmiyah wasn’t sure whether the rule could also lead to a leniency if the berry grew on the top of the hadas on Yom Tov (the festival) it would be restored to validity. That is why he asked the question.
Sorry to say, but the Talmud doesn’t resolve the question. Nevertheless, tomorrow’s section continues to deal with the concept of "set aside."