Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Pleasantness, Truth, and Peace – Sukkah – Gefet 5

Gefet: Gemara Rashi and Tosafot.

Delve into commentaries on the daf in this advanced level shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni.
Disclaimer: you do not have to be a daf learner to study Gefet. The texts are in Hebrew, the class teaching is in English.
Gefet is a collaboration with Drisha Institute.


In our perek there are a number of sugiyot which deal with the identification of the arba minim. It seems that at least two of them reveal fundamental principles in Torah interpretation. We will look at two sugiyot on daf 32 and the argument between Rashi and Tosfot on them.

On daf 32a Ravina and Rav Ashi discuss the identification of the lulav:

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐 讚诇讜诇讘讗 讛讜讗? 讗讬诪讗 讞专讜转讗! – 讘注讬谞讗 讻驻讜转, 讜诇讬讻讗. – 讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜驻转讗! – 讻驻讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 驻专讜讚, 讜讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 讜注讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐. – 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜驻专讗! – 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬: 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐 讻转讬讘.

Ravina asks an interpretive question: how did we arrive at the conclusion that the “讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐” mentioned in the pasuk refers specifically to the lulav? Ravina suggests a few other options for identifying “讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐”, but Rav Ashi rejects each one of them. We will use Rashi to help clarify this conversation:

  1. Ravina suggests that instead of taking a closed lulav, that we take a lulav “讞讬专讜转讗”, which is an open branch. Rav Ashi answers that the word “讻驻讜转” signifies that specifically a closed lulav is required – bound and tied.聽
  2. Ravina suggests “讗讜驻转讗”, meaning part of the actual trunk which is completely 鈥溩涀ぷ曌. Rav Ashi responds that 鈥溩涀ぷ曌 is referring to something that can be loosened when it is tied, but a tree trunk isn鈥檛 loose.聽
  3. Ravina鈥檚 last suggestion is “讻讜驻专讗”. Rashi explains that this is an in-between stage between the lulav and the fully open branch. It is a young palm leaf which can still be tied and bound.聽

Rav Ashi doesn鈥檛 have a response to the last suggestion of Ravina – but here, the gemara does something surprising and quotes an answer from a generation which preceded Ravina and Rav Ashi. Ravina and Rav Ashi were amoraim in the seventh generation in Babylonia, yet now, surprisingly, the gemara brings Abayei into the discussion. Abayei was an amora from the fourth generation. This means that we need to notice the fact that Abayei didn鈥檛 really answer Ravina鈥檚 question, rather was quoted in the beit midrash as a response to his question. What is Abayei鈥檚 claim, and how can this be an answer for Ravina? Abayei had a fundamental principle regarding the way that the Torah should be interpreted, which reaches beyond the specific interpretation of the word “讻驻讜转”. Abayei says:聽 “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐 鈥 讻转讬讘”, meaning that when we come to interpret the Torah, we need to do so according to the principle of pleasantness and peace. How does this principle negate the last suggestion of Ravina? Rashi explains:聽

讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 – 讜讗诇讜 注砖讜讬谉 讻拽讜爪讬诐, 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注讜拽爪讬谉 讛专讘讛, 讜诪住专讟讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐.

The “讻讜驻专讗”, which Ravina suggested, is a branch that already started to develop and has already hardened – all of its leaves are already sharp and prickly. Though they can be bound together, this comes with a price: scratched hands. Therefore, when we have a choice between two interpretations, one which scratches and hurts while the other one does not, we will negate the one that scratches and hurts because of the guiding principle of “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐”.聽

Learning the sugiya with the help of Rashi sharpens the notion that this sentence of Abayei which appears in the middle of the sugiya is a general rule of interpreting the pesukim of the Torah. The whole discussion here, which is surrounding the meaning of the word “讻驻转” , was held between amoraim in the last generation of the gemara. The principle of Abayei stands out in this context as a principle which belongs to a deeper interpretive claim. We will continue onto the next page and will see that this principle of Abayei is repeated and receives new emphasis and further development:

转谞讜 专讘谞谉: 注谞祝 注抓 注讘转 – 砖注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜. 讜讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 – 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚住. 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讬转讗! – 讘注讬谞谉 注讘转 讜诇讬讻讗. 讜讗讬诪讗 讚讜诇讘讗! – 讘注讬谞谉 注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜 讜诇讬讻讗. – 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬专讚讜祝! – 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬: 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜诇讬讻讗. 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗: 讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜.

After the gemara discusses the lulav, it moves on to discuss the identification of the hadas. The gemara opens with a braita which identifies the “注抓 讛注讘讜转” as hadas. In this sugiya, we don鈥檛 have specific speakers, rather it is the stam of the gemara which discusses the braita and suggests a number of additional options for the identification of the “注抓 讛注讘讜转”. The structure of the sugiya here is parallel to the sugiya that we saw on the previous page and has a similar progression. Here too we will use Rashi to help us:聽

The stam suggests that the “注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转” is an olive branch as it has lots of leaves which completely cover the tree. This suggestion is rejected as the covering needs to be 诪注砖讛 注讘讜转, like a chain. We will add to Rashi and will mention that we know the word 鈥溩⒆懽曌 in the context of a chain from the description of the hoshen which needs to be buttoned with golden chains.聽

  1. The stam suggests the plane-tree as “注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转”. Rashi explains that this is a tree whose leaves create a chain, however, the gemara rejects this option because the leaves don鈥檛 cover the branch completely. At this point in the gemara we have seen that there are two meanings to the word “注讘讜转” – covered, and chain, and only a tree which has both of these elements will be worthy of taking.聽
  2. The gemara continues and suggests the “讛专讚讜祝” which has both of these criteria. Yet here, we have a different type of problem. The gemara quotes Abayei and Rava: Abayei opposes this on the backdrop of the pasuk which was brought in the previous sugiya:聽 “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐”. Here, however, it seems that Abayei has a chavruta who learns a similar or even identical principle from a different pasuk: Rava rejects the suggestion that the 鈥溩ㄗ曌撟b is the hadas on the basis of a different pasuk, as it says: “专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗: 讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜”.

We have seen thus far that there are two sugiyot on one page which teach us how we need to read the pesukim of the Torah. We need to be exact in the meaning that we give, and to choose the species which fits the best with the multi-faceted word written in the Torah. However, literal exactness isn鈥檛 enough. We also need to fit additional criteria of “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐” and “讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜”. We will mention that these principles appear in other sugiyot in shas and are not limited to interpretations of the arba minim (those who are curious can Google the phrase 鈥 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐” and find more information on the subject, but this is not the place to expand upon this).聽


The Argument between Rashi and Tosfot

In our sugiya there is an interesting argument between Rashi and Tosfot which at first glance seems technical. We will present the argument and will try to clarify it in order to sharpen our understanding and reveal a deeper point with regards to the principles of interpretation.聽

As we saw, one of the main differences between the sugiya that deals with the hadas and the one that deals with the lulav is the addition of the opinion of Rava. In both, Abayei brings the same principle of “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐”. Rava brings a different pasuk. From the simple reading, it seems as if there is a difference between the reason brought by Abayei and the reason brought by Rava for disqualifying the 讛专讚讜祝 – but the gemara doesn鈥檛 mention it. Rashi enlightens us in that in his explanation, he shows how each one of the reasons relates to a different problem in the 讛专讚讜祝:

讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 – 讜讛讗讬 诪讘专讝 讘专讬讝 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讻拽讜爪讬诐, 砖专讗砖讬 注诇讬讜 注砖讜讬讬谉 讞讚讬谉 讻诪讞讟.

讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜 – 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 讗诪转 讜诇讗 砖诇讜诐, 砖讛讜讗 注砖讜讬 诇住诐 讛诪讜转.

Rashi鈥檚 interpretation of the sugiya sharpens the difference between Abayei and Rava with regards to the reason they disqualify the 讛专讚讜祝 from being the hadas: Abayei is worried about shaking a prickly plant which will scratch the person鈥檚 hands, while Rava is bothered by something else – the 讛专讚讜祝 being poisonous. Rashi鈥檚 explanation can answer another question that arises from reading the gemara: why is Rava not mentioned at all on the previous page where we discussed the lulav, and only Abayei鈥檚 pasuk is brought? According to Rashi鈥檚 interpretation, is is clear – all of the options for the lulav were not poisonous, rather only prickly, and therefore only Abayei鈥檚 claim was relevant. In the discussion about the hadas, however, when we are talking about a plant that is both prickly and poisonous, there is room for an argument between Abayei and Rava – the question being:聽 is the basis of the disqualification because of prickliness or the fact that it is poisonous?聽

The Tosfot raise a bunch of difficulties on Rashi鈥檚 interpretation, and as is usual for them, bring other sugiyot from shas. Therefore, in order to understand the progression in Tosfot, we will examine the central sugiya that they refer to: Pesachim 39a:

聽转谞讬 讚讘讬 (专讘讬) 砖诪讜讗诇, 讗诇讜 讬专拽讜转 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞: 讘讞讝专转, 讘注讜诇砖讬谉, 讜讘转诪讻讗, 讜讘讞专讘讬谞讬谉, 讜讘讞专讙讬谞讬谉, 讜讘讛专讚讜驻谞讬谉….

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 专讞讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 诪专讜专 诪讬谉 讬专拽 讛讜讗? 讗讬诪讗 诪专讬专转讗 讚讻讜驻讬讗! – 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪爪讛, 诪讛 诪爪讛 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 – 讗祝 诪专讜专 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注. – 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬专讚讜祝! – 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪爪讛, 诪讛 诪爪讛 诪讬谉 讝专注讬诐 – 讗祝 诪专讜专 诪讬谉 讝专注讬诐

This sugiya raises two questions:

  1. In the beginning of the sugiya it says that you can fulfil your requirement for eating maror on Pesach by eating 讛专讚讜祝. If so, this proves that it is not poisonous. From here it is difficult that Rashi explained that 讛专讚讜祝 is poisonous and that this is the reason that Rava disqualified it from being the hadas.
  2. The second part of the sugiya is parallel to the discussions we have in Sukkah – there they deal with the identification of the maror, and here we are dealing with the identification of the hadas. In Pesachim, the 讛专讚讜祝 is mentioned, but it is not rejected on the basis of the principles of Abayei and Rava, rather for a different reason: the 讛专讚讜祝 is not maror because in order for it to be maror, it needs to be from a type of plant that is not a tree, just like matzah. Why was it not rejected because of the reason of聽 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 or 讜讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐?

After this introduction, we will look at Tosfot and will see how the sugiya in Pesachim is the basis for their interpretation.聽

讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜 – 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 讗诪转 讜诇讗 砖诇讜诐 砖讛讜讗 注砖讜讬 诇住诐 讛诪讜转 讻讱 驻讬专砖 讛拽讜谞讟专住, 讜注诇 讞谞诐 讛讜讝拽拽 诇讜诪专 讟注诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗讻诇 拽专讗 讚讻诇 讞讚 砖讬讬讱 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 聽讜诪转讜讱 驻讬专讜砖讜 诪砖诪注 讚讛讬专讚讜祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讘驻专拽 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 (讞讜诇讬谉 讚祝 谞讞:) 讗讞讜讝转 讚诐 讜讛诪注讜砖谞转 讜砖讗讻诇讛 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 住诐 讛诪讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讻讚诪讜讻讞 讘驻’ 讻诇 砖注讛 (驻住讞讬诐 讚祝 诇讟. 讜砖诐) 讙讘讬 诪专讜专 讚拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讙讘讬 讬专拽讜转 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞. 讜讛讬专讚讜祝 驻住诇 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛 诪爪讛 诪讬谉 讝专注讬诐 讗祝 诪专讜专 诪讬谉 讝专注讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗 谞讜注诐 讜诇讗 砖诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖专讗砖讬 注诇讬讜 讞讚讬谉 讜注讜拽爪讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讘讬 诪专讜专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讻讜转砖讜 讗讜 诇讛住讬专 注讜拽爪讬讜 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讙讘讬 谞讟讬诇转 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讻诇 讛诪讬谞讬诐 讻讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转谉.

The Tosfot is built from four parts:

  1. Stage A – The Tosfot quote Rashi鈥檚 interpretation and reject it. They claim that there is no difference between Abayei and Rava. Although they each quote a different pasuk, they mean the same thing.
  2. Stage B – The Tosfot comment that Rashi identifies the 讛专讚讜祝 as a plant called聽 “讛专讚讜驻谞讬” which appears in a sugiya in Chullin and is described there as poisonous for animals.聽
  3. Stage C – The Tosfot raise a difficulty in identifying it with the “讛专讚讜驻谞讬”, because in Massechet Pesachim, it is mentioned as one of the plants that can fulfil one鈥檚 obligation for maror, and so cannot be a poisonous plant. Therefore it must be a plant that is only prickly but not poisonous, and so we can鈥檛 interpret Rava the way that Rashi did.
  4. Stage D – The Tosfot point to a seeming contradiction between the sugiyot: in Pesachim, the 讛专讚讜祝 wasn鈥檛 rejected because of its thorns, whereas the thorns are what disqualify the 讛专讚讜祝 from being the hadas. Why? Tosfot answer that since in Pesachim it is dealing with eating the 讛专讚讜祝, the thorns can be removed, and so there is no problem of 鈥溩撟ㄗ涀欁 讚专讻讬 谞注诐鈥.聽

We will note that Tosfot explain the sugiya in Pesachim well, but the sugiya in Sukkah remains difficult for them: in our sugiya, it seems that there is an argument between Abayei and Rava and that each pasuk has a different meaning – otherwise why bring both? Tosfot鈥檚 statement that the pesukim are identical in meaning is difficult, yet they prefer this to seeing a contradiction with Masechet Pesachim. Another problem with Tosfot is the question of why Rava鈥檚 pasuk is not mentioned in the discussion about lulav? If it doesnt talk about poison, but rather about prickliness, it should have appeared in the previous sugiya as well. We will take a glance at Tosfot on the previous page and will see that they are aware of this problem and deal with it in a very difficult way.聽

讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 – 专讘讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讛讻讗 拽专讗 讚讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讻讚诇拽诪谉.

Tosfot say that the reason that Rava鈥檚 opinion wasn鈥檛 mentioned in the discussion about lulav is simple and technical: Rava wasn鈥檛 in the beit midrash during that discussion. As we have seen, this is a difficult answer, since the whole discussion took place in a later generation, between Ravina and Rav Ashi. Abayei was also not there in actuality, rather he was quoted, and so just like he was quoted, Rava could have been quoted as well.聽

Thus we have seen that there is an argument between Rashi and Tosfot as to the identification of the 讛专讚讜祝 and in the reading of the sugiya, and we pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of Tosfot鈥檚 reading. We are left to go back and ask: how does Rashi read the sugiya in Pesachim? Tosfot鈥檚 difficulty on Rashi is significant, as it seems that 讛专讚讜祝 is not poisonous as it is mentioned as a plant that can be eaten as maror. In order to reconcile Rashi鈥檚 position, we will look at his words in Pesachim and in the 诪讛专”诐 讞诇讜讜讗讛 on the sugiya.聽

Rashi in Pesachim explains the 讛专讚讜驻讬谞讬 which appears at the beginning of the sugiya in this way:

讛讬专讚讜驻谞讬谉 – 讬砖 诪驻专砖讬谉 讗诇讜讬砖谞”讗 诇注谞讛 (讗讘住讬谞转).

This means that according to Rashi鈥檚 opinion, the plant that is suggested as an option for maror isn鈥檛 the 讛专讚讜祝, rather the 诇注谞讛. Rashi says that there are those who explain this way, and the 鈥渢hose鈥 is Rashi himself, who is consistent with his opinion, as according to his opinion in Sukkah, the 讛专讚讜祝 is the poisonous plant that is mentioned in Chullin. However, from Rashi it seems as though there are others that explain in a different way. What is the alternative? We will look at a later Rashi, where he explains the word 讛专讚讜祝 again in the continuation of the sugiya.聽聽

讛讬专讚讜祝 – 注抓 砖讛诪转讬拽 讘讜 诪砖讛 讗转 诪讬 诪专讛, 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 (讘住讜讟讛) (诪讻讬诇转讗 驻专砖转 讘砖诇讞): 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住, 砖讛讜讗 讛讬讛 诪专, 讜讛讜讗 讛讬专讚讜祝.

Here, Rashi鈥檚 explanation is interesting as he shows that there is another type of 讛专讚讜祝, and it seems that this is the poisonous one. If so, why did the sugiya not reject it because of the fact that it is poisonous? The 讛诪讛专”诐 讞诇讜讜讗讛 deals with this questions and answers something surprising:

讜讗讬诪讗 讛专讚讜祝 诪讛 诪爪讛 诪讬谉 讝专注讬诐 讜讻讜’, 讜讗”转 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讛讛讬讗 讚驻专拽 诇讜诇讘 讛讙讝讜诇 讚诪拽砖讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 谞讜注诐 诪砖讜诐 拽讜爪讬诐 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜 讻诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讬 住诐 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗驻砖专 讚诇讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诪讝讬拽. 讗”诇 讛转诐 砖讗谞讬 讚谞讬讟讜诇 讻讘专讬转讜 讗讬讻讗 拽讜爪讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪转拽谉 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚讘注讬, 讜讻谉 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专诪讝 诇砖注讘讜讚 诇诪爪专讬诐 讜诪专讬专讜转 注讘讚讬’ 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗注”讙 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽爪转 讛讬讝拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽诪”诇 诪讟注诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗.

The 讛诪讛专”诐 讞诇讜讜讗讛 says that here it is indeed talking about the 讛专讚讜祝 that is poisonous for animals, but that it also harms people minimally. The sugiya really thought that regarding the mitzvah of maror, it is possible that the Torah wanted us to be hurt a little so that by eating it, we can have a small feeling of the suffering in Egypt. Therefore, the idea of “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐” isn’t relevant because there is no pleasantness in eating maror. We have seen, therefore, that it is possible that in Rashi鈥檚 opinion, the 讛专讚讜祝 is a little bit poisonous for people, and therefore the rules of “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐” and “讜讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜” aren鈥檛 relevant for the mitzvah of maror.聽

In conclusion, we will go back to the sugiya and will sharpen Rashi鈥檚 reading of it. Rashi really consistently sees 讛专讚讜祝 as a plant that is poisonous for animals and slightly harmful for humans. According to the understanding of the 诪讛专”诐 讞诇讜讜讗讛, Rashi raised the possibility that for the mitzvah of maror, we can eat something that is slightly harmful to us. In light of this, we can better understand the argument between Abayei and Rava in our sugiya.聽

Taking the lulav involves shaking, not eating. According to Rashi鈥檚 opinion, Abayei thinks that 讛专讚讜祝 can鈥檛 be one of the arba minim because it injures people. The fact that is poisonous isn鈥檛 relevant to Abayei鈥檚 opinion because we don鈥檛 eat it, and therefore he specifically chooses the pasuk “讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐”. Rava goes in a different direction and chooses a different pasuk:聽 “讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜”. Rava says, it is true that we only shake the 讛专讚讜祝, but its real nature is that of death and not of life, and therefore, even though we don鈥檛 eat it, it can鈥檛 be one of the arba minim. The arba minim need to have an inside that matches their outside, and therefore if there is an inner problem as to the truth of the 讛专讚讜祝, even if it isn鈥檛 eaten, this inner blemish will disqualify it for being taken as a hadas.


  1. What is 讛专讚讜祝 in the sugiya? According to Tosfot it is a species which is prickly but not poisonous. According to Rashi, it is something that is poisonous for animals and minimally harmful to humans.聽
  2. Can something which is slightly harmful be eaten as maror? According to Tosfot, certainly not! According to Rashi, in the opinion of the 诪讛专”诐 讞诇讜讜讗讛, it could be, since with regards to maror, there is no place for pleasantness and peace as its essence is to be a reminder of the suffering of Egypt.聽
  3. What is the relationship between Abayei and Rava? According to Tosfot, they completely agree, and although they each chose a different pasuk, they don鈥檛 argue about anything. According to Rashi, Abayei disqualifies it on the basis of its outside, as there is no need to eat the arba minim. According to Rava, there is a reason to disqualify it as one of the arba minim on the basis of a problem with eating, and not only on an external problem – the arba minim can鈥檛 be poisonous, and in this he argues with Abayei.
  4. We saw that in questions of interpretation, we need to look at the greater context and rules of interpretation beyond being exact in the words of the pasuk – 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞注诐 讜讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜. We also need to ask if we are dealing with a mitzvah which is a reminder of suffering or a mitzvah whose whole purpose is to bring us closer to Hashem.聽

(Translated by Daphna Ansel-Nizan)


Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Rabbanit Shimoni has learned at Migdal Oz, Matan, and the Susi Bradfield Women鈥檚 Institute for Halakhic Leadership at Midreshet Lindenbaum. She holds a BFA from Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design and a BEd in Torah Shebe鈥檃l Peh and Jewish Thought from Herzog College. She is currently studying towards an MA in Jewish Thought Education at Herzog College. Rabbanit Shimoni taught gemara and halakha at Pelech High School and served as a ramit for shana bet at Migdal Oz. She directs Meshivat Nefesh, the online responsa program of the rabbaniyot of Beit Hillel. She is also a plastic artist and member of 鈥淎 Studio of Her Own.
Scroll To Top