1)

(a)We query Rava's previous statement from the Beraisa, which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah with regards to planks of cedar wood that are less than four Tefachim, which Rebbi Meir forbids - and Rebbi Yehudah permits.

(b)The problem now is - that if Rebbi Yehudah permits cedar-wood to be used as Sechach, how can he then insist that only the four species are Kasher?

(c)Rava resolves it - by including the myrtle in the list of cedars, as taught by Rabah bar Rav Huna ...

(d)... who lists ten different kinds of cedar-trees (including the Hadas).

2)

(a)Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah permits binding the Lulav with golden threads. He cites (in a Beraisa) - the wealthy elite of Yerushalayim who actually used to do this

(b)This does not constitute 'Bal Tosif' (adding an additional species) - because whatever is purely for beauty is not subject to 'Bal Tosif' (as we learned in the first Perek [10a]).

(c)Rabah instructed the Lulav-binders of the Bei Resh Galusa to leave uncovered the section of Lulav that one holds in one's hand, so as not to create a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the object of Mitzvah one one's hand). Rava disagreed - in that whatever it to enhance the beauty of a Mitzvah does not consitute a Chatzitzah either.

3)

(a)Rabah also forbade picking up a Lulav with a Sudar - (the head-covering, incorporating the neck and shoulders) of a Talmid-Chacham.

(b)His source for this is the Pasuk "u'Lekachtem ... ", which is the acronym of 'Lekichah Tamah' (and which means, among other things, that one should take it properly).

(c)Rava - holds that (sometimes - see Tosfos DH 'de'Ba'ina') taking something with a cloth is still called taking it.

4)

(a)Rava tries to prove from the Mishnah in Parah - which permits dipping a short hyssop into the Mei Chatas, by means of a string or a spindle that one ties to it (in spite of the fact that one is obligated to hold the hyssop in one's hand at the time of dipping), that holding something with the help of a third object is called holding it.

(b)We refute his proof however - by pointing out that there, the string is tied to the hyssop, in which case it is considered part of it; whereas holding the Lulav with a cloth (which is not tied to it) may well not constitute holding it at all.

(c)In any case, the Kohen is obligated to hold the actual twig whilst he is sprinkling - because otherwise, it will wobble from side to side, and he will be unable to direct the Mei Chatas to land where he wants it to.

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Chukas (regarding the ashes of the Parah Adumah) "v'Nasan Alav "Mayim Chayim el Kli" - that the water must be placed into the vessel first (before the ashes).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk there "v'Lakchu la'Tamei me'Afar Sereifas ha'Chatas, v'Nasan Alav ... " - that just as the Kohen must take the ashes with his hands, so too, must he pour them with his hands.

(c)This is the basis of the Tana's ruling disqualifying the Mei Chatas if the ashes fell into the Mei Chatas by themselves, implying that - if the Kohen poured them directly from the barrel, then he has fulfilled the Mitzvah ...

(d)... despite the fact that, as we just learned, the Mitzvah requires throwing the ashes into the Mei Chatas by hand, Rava's proof - that taking something via a second object (even when it is not tied) is still called taking.

6)

(a)Rabah also warns against 1. first tying the Hadasim and Aravos, and then forcing the Lulav into the bunch and 2. cutting the bottom of a Lulav that is too long whilst it is still bound - because the leaves that are now severed from the Lulav and the piece of detached Lulav that remains in the bunch, constitute a Chatzitzah.

(b)In both cases, Rava comments - that 'Min b'Mino Eino Chotzetz' (an object does not constitute a Chatzitzah against the same species as itself).

(c)Rabah permits smelling ...

1. ... an Esrog of Mitzvah on Sukos, but not a Hadas - because when people designate an object of Mitzvah for the Mitzvah, they tend to have in mind to abstain from its main function exclusively. Consequently, by an Esrog, it is from eating it that they mean to abstain, whereas by a Hadas, it is from smelling it, (as that it its only regular function).

2. ... a growing Hadas on Shabbos or Yom-Tov, but not a growing Esrog (for the same basic reason) - because one is able to smell a growing Hadas (just as easily without picking it), but not a growing Esrog (which one may decide to eat, and will then have to pick).

(d)Eating a fruit directly from a tree on Shabbos or Yom-Tov constitutes detaching, which is a Toldah of Kotzer (reaping).

7)

(a)Rabah explains that we take the Lulav in the right hand, and the Esrog in the left (despite the Chashivus of the Esrog) - because the Lulav comprises three items, whereas the Esrog, only one. ('be'Rov Am Hadras Melech').

(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu asks that if we recite the Berachah 'Al Netilas Lulav', and not 'Al Netilas Esrog' because it is the highest - then why can we not simply lift up the Esrog until it protrudes above the Lulav? ...

(c)... to which Rebbi Zeira replied that what Rabah means is that the Lulav is the tallest of its group (see Tosfos DH 've'Lagbehei').

8)

(a)Our Mishnah citing Beis Hillel, explains that the Lulav is shaken at 'Hodu', both at the beginning and at the end - meaning either both after the 'Hodu' after 'Mah Ashiv', and after the 'Hodu' before the final Berachah, or at both the beginning and the end of the Pasuk (Hodu la'Hashem Ki Tov" and at the end of the Pasuk ("Ki Le'olam Chasdo").

(b)And they also prescribe shaking at 'Ana Hash-m Hoshi'a Na'. Beis Shamai maintains - that one also shakes by 'Ana Hash-m Hatzlichah Na'.

(c)Rebbi Akiva there testified that ...

1. ... the congregation shook also at 'Ana Hash-m Hatzlichah Na', whilst ...

2. ... Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua shook only at 'Ana Hash-m Hoshi'a Na'.

(d)The Tana Tana 'suddenly' begins speak about the Mitzvah (mid'Rabanan) of shaking the Lulav without first introducing the concept - because he already did so in an earlier Mishnah, when he gave the size of the Lulav as three Tefachim plus the amount that one needs, to shake it.

9)

(a)Based on the Mishnah in Menachos, the Kohen waved the Shtei ha'Lechem and the two lambs of the Shalmei Tzibur on Shavu'os - by first placing the breads on top of the live lambs (since the Torah writes "Al Shnei Chevasim") and then waving them in all four directions and up and down.

(b)The Torah does indeed write "Al Lechem ha'Bikurim" - and the Gemara in Menachos will deal with that.

(c)

1. "Asher Hunaf" - means that it was waved in all four directions, and ...

2. "va'Asher Huram" - that it was waved up and down.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains that the Kohen waves them in all four directions to acknowledge that Hash-m owns all four directions (i.e. the whole world) - and he waves them up and down to acknowledge that He also owns Heaven and earth.

(b)They quoted Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina (in Eretz Yisrael) as saying - that one waves the two lambs ...

1. ... in all four directions - in order to dispel harmful winds, and ...

2. ... up and down - to negate harmful dews.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yosi bar Avin (or bar Zevila) learns from here that - even 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' have the power to retard punishment.

(b)'Sheyarei Mitzvah' - constitutes the final stage of a Mitzvah which does not even affect the performance of the Mitzvah (i.e. the Kaparah is effective anyway, whether one has performed this final stage or not).

(c)Chazal instituted that the Lulav too, like the lambs and the loaves on Shavu'os, should be waved in all directions, up and down (and there too, says the Agados Maharsha) shaking the Lulav also has the power to dispel harmful winds and harmful dews..

12)

(a)As he shook the Lulav, Rav Acha bar Yakov used to say 'This is an arrow in the eye of the Satan (meaning that our love of the Mitzvah of Lulav - in performing additional Mitzvos not prescribed by the Torah) incapacitates the Satan (see also Agadas Maharsha).

(b)We conclude however, that it is not advisable to do that - because, when you incite someone, you cause him to fight back. And to invite the Satan to fight back is asking for trouble.