Clarification: The source of the date-palm - where it is close to the ground spikes grow from it all the way round it ...

Clarification (cont.): 'And even though they are joined' - they are attached to the branches of the tree. This is how Rashi explains it.

Refuted Definition: This is not equivalent to 'Atzvasa de'Dikla' mentioned in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 39a & 39b) ...

Refutation: Since that is a grass that grows round the palm tree with which one is Yotzei the Mitzvah of Maror - and even if it grows from thr palm tree, the Gemara states there 'Just as Matzah is a kind of seed ... '.

Alternative Definition: Perhaps it is 'Arkavlin', mentioned at the end of 'Osin Pasin' (Eruvin, Daf 26b), which the Gemara there defines as "Atzvasa Charyusa', which Rashi explains as bast (a fibrous substance) that grows round a palm tree.

Alternative Definition (cont.): Which one must define as a seed ...

Refutation: However, since the Mishnah in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (later on Daf 36b) riles that one may only bind the Lulav with one of its own species, on which Rava in the Gemara comments 'even with bast and even with the root of a palm tree' ...

Refutation (cont.): We can learn that it is not a grass but an intrinsic part of the palm tree, in which case it cannot be 'Arkavlin'.

Refuted Definition: Rashi defines this as 'lettuce that grows in marshland'.

Refutation: But this does not seem to be the case, according to the Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 39a) where 'Ravina found Rav Acha b'reih de'Rava searching for Maror ...

Refutation (cont.): And commented that, if it was because it is more bitter, the Mishnah says 'lettuce'?, from which we see that it is not lettuce?

Authentic Definition: It must therefore be a different species that is called 'Mar'risa'.

Authentic Definition (cont.): Some of which is grown in marshland, and whose root is called 'Ti'ah' ..

Source: As we learned in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 59a & 59b) 'What is Ti'ah? The root of Mar'risa'.

Precedent: Rava, in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 62b) gives a similar answer in connection with 'the pigeons of Rachbah' (See Maharsha).

Precedent (cont.): And even though Abaye, both here and there, presents different answers, he too concedes to Rava ...

Proof: Because in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Ibid, Daf 80a) the Gemara validates the 'goats of Ba'ala' Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: In Maseches Avos (3:6) it implies that less than five is not called 'Egged' ...

Question (cont.): When the Mishnah says 'If ten people who are sitting and studying Torah, the Shechinah is among them, as the Pasuk writes "G-d stands in the congregation of Hash-m".

Question (cont.): And from where do we know that the same applies to five? Because the Pasuk writes "And His group he has established on the earth"; and from where do we know that it even applies to three? Because it writes "He adjucates in the midst of (be'Kerev) the judges"?

Refuted Answer #1: Some Sefarim reverse the text - learning five from "be'Kerev"

Refuted Answer #1 (cont.): Because it refers to "Adas" mentioned at the beginning of the Pasuk, and the Lashon "be'Kerev" implies in the middle - i.e. half the congregation, meaning that He will adjucate when there are five.

Refuted Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas three the Tana learns from "And His group he has established on the earth".

Refutation: The Gemara in the first Perek of B'rachos (on Daf 6a), does not seem to hold like that however, when, in response to the question from where we know that the Shechinah rests among ten people who are Davening, it cites the Pasuk "G-d stands in the congregation of Hashm" ...

Refutation (cont.): And in reply to the question from where we know that it rests with three who are sitting in Din, it cites the Pasuk "He adjucates in the midst of the judges".

Refutation (concl.): It does fit well with the first text.

Authentic Answer: Perhaps even though generally an Agudah consists of three, the Pasuk of "And His group he has established on the earth" only fits with five ...

Proof: Because the Pasuk writes "Also My Hand established the earth" - and a hand comprises five fingers.

Implied Question: The Pasuk does not write 'Agudah' by the hyssop of Parah, only by that of the Pesach of Egypt.

Answer: The Sifri (in Parshas Chukas) learns it with a Gezeirah Shavah from 'Lekichah' Lekichah'.

Implied Question: And as for the Rabanan earlier (on Daf 11b), who do not learn 'Lekichah' 'Lekichah' by Lulav - since they declare Kasher a Lulav that is not bound ...

answer: They learn that the Gezeirah Shavah was handed down as "Eizov" "Eizov".

Question: If it is a Gezeirah Shavah, why does the Seifa of the Mishnah (at the end of the eleventh Perek of Parah) rule that 'Even if they did not bind them, it is Kasher'?

Question (cont.): Why is it any different than a Lulav according to Rebbi Yehudah (Ibid.), where the Beraisa states 'Agud Kasher, Lo Agud Pasul' - because it is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah?

Clarification: One 'capsule' on each stem ...

Proof: Because if it meant three 'capsules' on each stem, it would encroach on the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who says in the Seifa 'Three by three ... '.

Source: In fact, this Mishnah is learned at length in Maseches Parah (Perek 11, Mishnah 9), only the Gemara here cites it briefly.

Implied Question: In Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 35b) where the sons of Rebbi Chiya stated that 'the remnant of Tzitzis is Kasher, and so is the remnant of a hyssop' ...

Answer #1: It mentions Tzitzis on account of hyssop, since we already learned hyssop in the Mishnah in Maseches Parah (Ibid.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it needs to mention it in connection with a Metzora.

Clarification: On Pesach that one is Yotzei the Mitzvah of Maror - 'Lettuce, endives, horseradish and Charchevina' - which are extremely thin/small ('tenves' in old French).

Conclusion: Therefore 'One cannot use them to as a Chatzitah (to divide/interrupt) before Tum'ah' - If one covered one's roof with them.

Clarification (cont.): This is mi'de'Rabanan, in that the Rabanan decreed that one may not rely on them to interrupt before Tum'ah, in case one comes to rely on them even after they have dried up.

Clarification (cont.): Min ha'Torah however, they do interrupt - seeing as, since they are not edible, they are not subject to Tum'ah ...

Clarification (cont.): And once they dry up, they do not interrupt, as the Gemara explains - because they disintegrate and fall apart.

Clarification (cont.): 'And they transmit Tum'ah' whilst they are still wet - because as long as they have not dried up, they form an Ohel mi'd'Oraysa (thus Rashi explains).

Implied Question: The reason that he finds it necessary to explain 'mi'de'Rabanan is ...

Answer: Because if they were considered an Ohel mi'd'Oraysa regarding transmitting, they would also be considered an Ohel regarding Chatzitzah ...

Answer (cont.): And if they are not considered an Ohel regarding Chatzitzah, they are not considered a Chatzitzah regarding transmitting either.

Implied Question: Because it is not comparable to those listed in the eighth Perek of Ohalos (Mishnah 1) in connection with those that transmit but do not interrupt.

Answer: Because the reason there is based on the principle 'Whatever is subject to Tum'ah, does not interrupt before Tum'ah'

Answer (cont.): Whereas that reason is not applicable here, seeing as the Gemara attributes it to the fact that 'when they dry up they will disintegrate and fall apart'.

Attempted Refutation: Nor is it logical to say that that reason is restricted to Sukah exclusively.

Reinstating: Since it would appear to refer to the entire statement.

Proof: Moreover, if that reason did apply here, then we would learn it from the Mishnah in Ohalos, which reckons Tamei foods.

Conclusion: It must therefore be mi'de'Rabanan that it is not Chotzetz here.

Implied Question: And the reason that it does not list them together with those in Ohalos is ...

Answer: Because there it speaks mi'd'Oraysa, and here, mi'de'Rabanan.

Question: How can the Rashi say that they are not edible, when the Gemara says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 39b) that 'Just as Matzah can be purchased with the money of Ma'aser (Sheini), so too, Maror? ...

Proof: Indeed, it is for that very reason that the Gemara precludes (a bitter herb called) 'Harzifi', which one cannot use as Maror, as Rashi explains there ...

Proof (cont.): Since Harzifi cannot be purchased with the money of Ma'aser Sheini, since it is not a food, and we need it to be a food, like "fresh wine, old wine, cattle and sheep".

Conclusion: In fact, this is a note that R. Yehudah added to Rashi's explanation - that 'they are not subject to Tum'ah since they are not fit for human consumption'; but it is not correct, because they are in fact edible! ...

Clarification: Nevertheless, they interrupt mi'd'Oraysa, as long as they have not yet become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Maseches Ohalos (Perek 8, Mishnah 1) in connection with 'transmitting Tum'ah and interrupting' - where it lists Tahor food - meaning that they have not become Muchshar ...

Source (cont.): And in connection with 'transmitting and not interrupting' it lists Tamei foods, meaning that they have become Muchshar.

Support: And this is also evident in Perek Lo Yachpor (Bava Basra, Daf 19b & 20a), in the Sugya of 'Wafer'.

Clarification: And this is speaking specifically with regard to when they are detached, because if they would be attached, they would neither transmit Tum'ah nor interrupt before it ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Ohalos (Perek 8, Mishnah 5) - 'The following do not transmit and are not Chotzetz; Seeds and vegetables that are attached to the ground ...

Source (cont.): Except for the vegetables that the Chachamim listed - with reference to 'What transmits and are Chotzetz' ...

Source (cont.): Since it reckons there (at the beginning of Perek 8) 'Erus (a kind of lily), a Kisum (ivy), Yerakos Chamor or a Greek gourd, which are Chotzetz even when they are attached ...

Reason: Because they are fixed and firm, and are not blown about by the wind ...

Other Vegetables: Unlike other vegetables that are attached, which blow about in the wind

Precedent: In fact, they are like a Talis and like a boat that floats on the water ...

Other Vegetables (cont.): And even when they are not moving, they neither transmit Tum'ah nor are they Chotzetz before it ...

Source: Since the Seifa writes that 'If he tied the boat with something that holds it still or placed a heavy stone on the Talis, it will transmit Tum'ah - otherwise, not.

Clarification (cont.): But when other vegetables are detached and placed in the window or in the skylight, they are Chotzetz.

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Lo Yachpor (Bava Basra, Daf 20a & 20b) 'Herbs that one detached and placed in the window or which grew there by themselves detract from the space'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, if one were to separate the ears of corn from the stalks, they would disintegrate and get lost.

Explanation #2: Others explain, that the ears of corn weigh down on the stalks, thereby preventing the stalks from being separated from the Sukah by the wind.

Clarification: But if the majority is food, it is Pasul.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 129a & 129b) rules that 'If one forms the roof of a house with seeds, they are Tahor, because they become Bateil' ...

Answer #1: One can draw a distinction between a house and a Sukah, inasmuch as in a Sukah they are not Bateil ...

Reason: Seeing as the Sukah stands to be dismantled after Sukos.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they need to be not subject to Tum'ah at the time when one puts them up, due to 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy' (above, Daf 12a).

Answer #3: There (in the case of the house), it speaks where he effected a change (a Shinuy Ma'aseh) in the seeds, since with Machshavah alone the Tum'ah will not go away; whereas here it speaks where he did not make a Shinuy Ma'aseh.

Proof #1: As is evident a little later, when following the question 'If so, what is the Rabanan's reason?', the Gemara replies 'Because simply placing them on the Sukah is not considered a Shinuy Ma'aseh.'

Proof #2: And similarly, in Perek Lo Yachpor (Bava Basra, Daf 19b & 20a) on the statement 'One wafer does not diminish the space in the window - because he is not Mevatel it' ...

Proof #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks 'Why not simply say that it remains something that is subject to Tum'ah, since Bitul does not help without a Shimuy Ma'aseh?'