1-Shabbos 132a Ref. Your question : If Rebbi Eliezer accepts the Gezeirah Shavah between Lulav and Sukah, then why does he require another verse to teach that the Mitzvah of Lulav is performed only during the day (and not at night as well, like Sukah)? ANSWER (b) The RE'AH ect...
Question:The Re'ah answers that without the special verse I would have applied the Gezeirah Shavah to perform Lulav all night long , just like Sukkah.
Question: Yet, even by sukkah, the Torah doesn't mean that one must sleep all day and all night long in the Sukah, but rather, if one wants to sleep all day and all night long, then he must sleep in the Sukah. And even on the first night of Sukah when one must sleep in the Sukka, the shiur of the Mitza Chiyuvis is not longer than 40 minutes. Similarly, when the Torah writes to eat Mazta all seven days of Pesach it only means that he cannot it Chametz and even on the first night where the Torah writes ( Shemos 18, 12) that one must eat Matza the night of Pesach, it doesn't mean that he must eat all night long, but rather one kezayis Matza. So why would I have thought that from the Gezeira Shava one must pick up the Lulav all day and all night. If, indeed, the Torah meant just once at night it would have been very similar to Sukkah.
2-Shabbos 132b Ref Your last paragraph which mentions Rahi (DH Nega'im Tehorim) who writes in the name of Sifri than even Nega'im which are Tahor are forbiden to be cut off.
Question: By removing the milah of such a person who was tohor because he was fully covered with Tsoraas he now should become Tomei with Tsoraas since his body is no longer fully covered with Toraas. Yet, from Rashi it appears that he still remains tohor.Why ?
3- Another question on same subject: If a person has simonim of Tsoraas , but never went to be seen by a Cohen to declare him tomey, can he remove his tsoraas without transgressing the lav ? I would think that he still cannot cut the storaas although such cutting did not make him more tohor than he was. But then why didn't our gemarah , or Rashi use such a person to qualify like Nega'im Tehorim ?
1. That is an excellent question.
The Re'ah is cited by the Ritva and by the Ran, slightly differently in each. It would appear from the Chidushei ha'Ran that he means as follows. When the Torah says Yamim with regard to Sukah, night is a Chumra; even at night one must sit in the Sukah. Therefore, the Gezeirah Shavah cannot be used to compare Lulav (or Matzah) to Sukah, unless the verse is interpreted in a similar manner for Lulav as well; that is, as a Chumra. It is therefore clear that it cannot mean that one may take the Lulav at night instead of the day (a Kula), for then Yamim by Sukah will mean something entirely different from Yamim by Lulav. (See the Chidushei ha'Ran for yourself, I think this can be what he means.)
2. Good question. The answer is that the Sifri is not referring to Negaim such as ha'Ba Kulo Lavan, which become Tahor when some of the Nega recedes. It is referring to Nega'im that are Tahor because their Siman Tum'ah has gone, and the Kohen has declared them Tahor. They do not become Tamei if they recede. (This is clear from the Sifri, which is cited and explained by the Mishnah l'Melech.)
3. Such a case as you mention is not better than Rashi's case of Bohek, which refers to a Nega whose appearance is not bright enough in its whiteness to be considered one of the four Nega'im Teme'im. Such a case has the same status as one who never showed his Nega to a Kohen to find out whether its whiteness is bright enough to be considered a Nega Tamei or not (or if it is the size of a Gris or not). If so, the case that you suggest, a white Mar'eh which has not been shown to a Kohen, is indeed included in the words of Rashi.
Thank you for your kind Yom Tov greetings. All the best!
M. KORNFELD