tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post8464482328884448873..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: How do we know that לולב צריך אגד?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-55489593496572254622013-12-16T01:10:40.663-05:002013-12-16T01:10:40.663-05:00Thank you for clarification.
לשיטתך there is noth...Thank you for clarification.<br /><br />לשיטתך there is nothing wrong with an additional drasha, but at least we could now understand why the gemorrah did not suggest your interpretation. (bc they did have a problem with making two drashas).Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60096448461187584392013-12-16T00:23:58.861-05:002013-12-16T00:23:58.861-05:00good point. not "ignoring" the braysa, b...good point. not "ignoring" the braysa, but forgot it in my analysis. (while i learned gemara succah a while ago, now I am going through the mishnayos, so did not have this comprehensive picture. but baruch shekivanti regarding the derasha! I think one can indeed also bring in Rabbi Yossi about how esrog need not be in the same hand as the lulav bundle.)<br /><br />but I don't see the existence of this alternate derasha as a problem.<br /><br />first, that while it is indeed explaining the statement in the Mishna that רבי יהודה אומר יאגדנו מלמעלה, the braysa attributes this derasha to ר' יהודה אומר משום ר' טרפון. though that is weak.<br /><br />second, this indeed shows that he was looking to the word כפות as an אגד.<br /><br />third, it works out so perfectly and neatly according to both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, as an explanation for their positions.<br /><br />fourth, I forgot to mention that the only examples for Rabbi Yehuda are bindings of date palms. I allege that if one tied the lulav bundle with a hadas or arava, Rabbi Yehuda would not hold that such would be good.<br /><br />fifth and finally, I don't subscribe to the idea that, for the Tannaim, there is always only one derasha per word and only one word per derasha, such that we are playing musical chairs with words and derashot. this "systematic" idea is most characteristic of the later strata, and more so of the setama degemara. as such, i don't see any problem at all with Rabbi Yehuda making both derashot from the same word. <br /><br />indeed, even above, i was saying that he was making two simultaneous derashot on the word kapot and how it relates to the other words, first, that the items in the bundle should be a bundle of palm, myrtle, and willow, and second that the item used to bundle it should be made of palm. so what is the problem with an additional derasha?<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-14218754101350771962013-12-15T23:27:55.852-05:002013-12-15T23:27:55.852-05:00Aren't you ignoring the braisa on 32a that Rav...Aren't you ignoring the braisa on 32a that Rav Yehuda darshened כפות to mean binding, but understood it differently than you. It's referring to the lulav alone; if the leaves separate he must bind them together. This drasha was also quoted in the jastrow that you posted Jrnoreply@blogger.com