1)

(a)Rav Chanan bar Rava permitted the use of both Hizmi and Higi (types of bush) as Sechach - Abaye forbids Higi because the leaves tend to fall off, and the constant falling of leaves into one's food may well cause a person to leave the Sukah.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that bundles of straw may not be used as Sechach. Nevertheless Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Shilo permits using palm branches that grow low on the tree, and that in fact, comprise a number of branches tied together - because they are tied naturally, not manually, and do not therefore fall under the category of 'Eged' (tied) which the Rabanan forbade.

(c)Higher up on the branch, the branches tend to spread out, making them useless as Sechach unless they are tied together manually. Even that is not included in the decree - because the decree is confined to many items that are tied together, and not to one item that one ties together in order to connect its various parts.

(d)The problem with the Beraisa 'Kanin v'Dokranin (bamboos and spikes) Mesachechin Behu' is - that Kanim is obvious.

(e)Consequently, what the Beraisa must mean is - 'Kanin shel Dukranim' (meaning a bunch of canes that grow out of one root, but which give the appearance of being separate canes, though in reality they not, in which case, they do not enter the realm of 'bundles of straw').

2)

(a)Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Shilo rules - that using 'Marerisa d'Agma' as Maror is permitted.

(b)The problem with this ruling is the Beraisa, which disqualifies hyssop from being used for the Parah Adumah, if it has a descriptive title (such as 'a Greek hyssop' or 'a blue hyssop'), since the Torah prescribes a plain hyssop, and not one with a descriptive title. In that case, the Torah also prescribes plain Maror for the Seder, so how can Maror with a descriptive title be Kasher?

(c)Abaye concedes that its name is 'Marerisa d'Agma'. Nevertheless, unlike the various types of hyssop mentioned (which existed before the Torah was given, yet when the Torah was given, it prescribed plain hyssop, disqualifying all other kinds) - at the time when the Torah was given, it was called just plain 'Maror', and was therefore Kasher. The title 'Marerisa d'Agma' was given to it only later.

(d)Rava does not seem to agree with Abaye's principle. According to him - its real name, is and always was, 'Maror', and it is only known as 'Marerisa d'Agma' because it tended to grow in the marsh.

3)

(a)One stalk does not constitute a bundle, three do - two is a Machlokes between Rebbi Yosi and the Rabanan.

(b)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Parah requires three roots, each comprising one stalk, for the Mitzvah of Ezov. Rebbi Yosi says ...

1. ... 'Sheyarav Shenayim' (meaning that as long one began with three, if two remain - they are Kasher.

2. ... 'Girdumav (which means the remains, once the end wears down from use) is a Kolshehu.

(c)We initially suggest that Rebbi Yosi permits two stalks even l'Chatchilah, and the three that he mentions - are l'Chatchilah (ideally speaking).

(d)If that is so, then the Rabanan will hold that - that one is not Yotzei with two stalks - even bedi'Eved.

4)

(a)We reject the previous suggestion however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi says - that Eizov is not Kasher (even bedi'Eved) unless it has at least three stalks l'Chatchilah and its remains, two.

(b)We therefore conclude that, for the Mitzvah of Eizov - Rebbi Yosi requires three stalks even bedi'Eved, and the Rabanan, l'Chatchilah three, bedi'Eved, two.

(c)The author of the Beraisa which says 'Eizov she'Techilaso Shenayim v'Shayarav Echad, Kasher' - is the Rabanan.

(d)In order not to clash with what we learned in the Reisha, we must amend the Seifa ('ve'Eino Pasul ad she'Yehei Techilaso ve'Shayarav Echad') to read - 've'Eino Pasul ad she'Yehei Techilaso ke'Shayarav Echad' i.e. that the Eizov is only Pasul if it begins, like its Shyarav, with only one stalk (but two is Kasher bedi'Eved).

5)

(a)Mereimar permitted the use of bundles of canes that were sold in Sura as Sechach - on the grounds that they were tied into bundles for the purpose of selling them (since a bundle would include a standard number of canes). However, this was only for a short period of time - whereas Gezeiras Otzar is confined to canes that are made into bundles for long periods of time.

(b)Rebbi Aba permitted a 'Tzerifa d'Urvena' - a round, pointed hunter's hut made out of willow branches - to be used as Sechach.

(c)It was Kasher, provided one cut the top knot (even without actually undoing the weaving - since this would occur automatically).

(d)Rav Papa ruled that it was also necessary to untie the knot that held it together at the bottom; Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua maintained that this was unnecessary - because a knot that is tied only at one end will not remain intact once is carried.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Aba quoting Shmuel, any species of vegetables that one may use as Maror on Pesach is considered an Ohel to transmit Tum'ah. Nevertheless, it does not protect things that are on top of it from Tum'ah - because it soon dries up, in which case it becomes less than a Tefach, and will not therefore protect anything from Tum'ah. Chazal therefore issued a decree when it is wider than a Tefach, because of when it is not.

(b)When Rebbi Aba says 'u'Poslin b'Sukah Mishum Avir' - he means that they invalidate the Sukah as Pasul Sechach with a Shi'ur of three Tefachim (like air), and not four (like Pasul Sechach), for the same reason i.e. because they are destined to dry up (so the Chachamim already considered it as if they had already done so - Lechumra).

7)

(a)When Rebbi Aba (quoting Rav Huna) says that grapes that are picked for the wine-press have no 'Yados' - he means that although the stalks of food are subject to Tum'ah together with the food (and even receive Tum'ah to transmit it to the food), that is only when the owner intends to eat the food directly (because then, he uses the stalks to transport the food), but not when he wants the grapes to make wine (in which case, he has no use for the stalks), which do not therefore have the Din of Yados.

(b)Rav Menashya bar Gada quotes Rav Huna as saying that if someone cuts the corn to use as Sechach, the stalks are not considered a 'Yad' to the wheat kernels (for a similar reason) - because he is not interested in the wheat kernels remaining attached to the stalks.

(c)The fruit (i.e. the wheat kernels) do not invalidate the Sukah - because we are speaking when there is more waste than fruit, in which case the fruit becomes Batel to the waste.

(d)Rebbi Aba does not agree with Rav Menashya bar Gada. According to him, a person will certainly not want the stalks attached to the grapes - because they will absorb some of the grape-juice; whereas he does want the fruit to remain attached to the stalks - to add weight to the stalks, to prevent them from blowing away.

8)

(a)If one has branches with figs, grapes and dates on them, and stalks with kernels, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires more waste than fruit (irrespective of the stalks, which he considers of no importance) for the branches to be valid as Sechach. Acherim says - that the waste must exceed both the fruit and the stalks, in order to be Mevatel them.

(b)Rebbi Aba (who maintains that the stalks on Sukos have a Din of Yad, as we just learned), cannot possibly hold like the Tana Kama, who holds that they do not.

(c)If Rebbi Menashya bar Gada (who holds that the stalks on Sukos do not have a Din of Yad) were to agree that the Tana'im in the Beraisa argue over whether the stalks constitute Yados or not - he would hold like the Tana Kama.

(d)On the other hand, he might establish even Acherim like him (that stalks do not have the Din of Yados) - by establishing the Beraisa when the owner initially cut the stalks for food, but then changed his mind to use them as Sechach, in which case, Acherim gives the stalks the Din of Yad only because we go after the owner's intention at the time when he cut them; whereas the Rabanan hold that his second thought cancels his first one.

9)

(a)The problem with this answer is - that it clashes with the principle that (in the laws of Tum'ah), once a vessel is completed (irrespective of whether it is through an act or just through Machshavah), it can only change its status (to a vessel which is not subject to Tum'ah), by an act, and not through Machshavah alone).

(b)A piece of leather that has obviously been cut to be used as a table, will lose its eligibility to become Tamei - the moment one begins to re-cut it in the shape of a shoe.

10)

(a)To answer the above question, we attempt to differentiate between vessels and the stalks of fruit - by confining the principle of 'Ein Machshavah Motzi mi'Yedei Machshavah' to the former (which are lasting and therefore significant), but not to the latter (which are only for eating, and therefore not significant).

(b)This explanation is feasible according to Rebbi Elazar, who explains the Mishnah in Uktzin (which declares Tahor the Yados of 'Ochlin she'Basesan') to mean food whose bundles they untied - because untying is not really an act, and is more comparable to a Machshavah.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan however, interprets - 'Basesan' as 'threshing the corn' (in order to soften it) ...

(d)... in which case, we see that even handles of food require an act to remove their eligibility to become Tamei (in which case Machshavah will not suffice even for food).