Sugya in Yoma: In the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 79a) the Gemara cites this Mishnah with the Lashon 'Not because it is the Halachah, but because they wanted to be strict with themselves (and they gave it ti Rebbi Tzadok ...) '.

Clarification: It is because the Gemara here, explains the Mishnah like this that the Gemara cites it as if it was part of the Mishnah.

Clarification: And one is not permitted to wrap one's hand with a cloth for fear that one may come to touch, aas the Gemara concludes in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin, Daf 107b).

Question: But Rebbi Tzadok was a Kohen, as Tosfos explained earlier (26b DH 'Natlo'), in which case using a cloth is permitted even for a k'Beitzah, without Netilas Yadayim ...

Source: As Shmuel stated there - 'They permitted a cloth for those who eat Terumah but not for those who eat Taharos (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Rebbi Eliezer's Source: The Yerushalmi learns a Gezeirah-Shavah "Teishvu" "Teishvu" - "u'Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Teishvu Yomam va'Laylah Yomam va'Laylah"; Just as the Yeshivah that is said there (in connection with the Mishkan), the night were the same as the day, so too, the 'Yeshivah' that is mentioned here, are the nights the same as the days'.

The Rabanan's Source: And Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Yishmael explains the Rabanan's reason - 'It says "Chamishah-Asar" by Pesach and "Chamishah-Asar" by Sukos; Just as in the case of the former, the first night is an obligation, and the subsequent nights, voluntary, so too, the latter.

Question #1: The Chachamim queried this - 'In that case, why do we not also say "Just as there, one is obligated to enter Yom-Tov with an appetite, so too here?"

Question #2: And Rebbi Zeira queried it inasmuch as , 'In that case, let us also say "Just as there, one is obligated to eat a k'Zayis Matzah, one is also obligated to eat a k'Zayis Matzah in the Sukah?"

Clarification: At all, since, if one does eat, he is Chayav to eat in the Sukah, as the Gemara ruled earlier.

Inference: It implies here that there is no obligation to eat on Yom-Tov, and apart from the first night, one is permitted not to eat.

Ramification: That being the case, someone who errs and fails to mention Yom-Tov in BIrchas ha'Mazon, does not need to repeat it.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 40b) 'On Shabbos, when one does have the option of not eating, someone who errs must repeat ...

Answer: Can only be speaking on the last nights of Pesach and Sukos

Implied Question: And when , in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 15b) and in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim, Daf 68b), in connection with Yom-Tov, Rebbi Yehosua says, 'Divide it, half for Hash-m and half for you - Half for eating and half for the Beis-ha'Medrash ...

Answer: One can fulfill this with meat and fruit, which requires neither Yom-Tov nor Birchas ha'Mazon.

Conclusion: Though on the first night, one cannot be Yotzei without bread, since we learn it from Pesach ...

Conclusion (cont.): Even though according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Gemara says that on the other days, if one complemented with Kinds of Targima, one is Yotzei (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Clarification: He is querying the ruling that complements it on the last day, when there is no Sukah.

Explanation #1: To the Chachamim - to say that there is no fixed amount, and that, if he wishes to fast, he may do so, except for the first night of Yom-Tov.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains that he does argue with them in that he holds that it has Tashlumin, just as the Korban of the first day of Yom-Tov has Tashlumin even on the last day.

Question #1: The Lashon 'Yashlom' and 've'Im Hishlim' however, do not imply a Lashon of 'Tashlumin' (making up), but rather of complementing the number of fourteen Se'udos?

Question #2: Moreover, seeing as we learn it from Matzah, we do not find the concept of Tashlumin with regard to the Matzah of the first night of Pesach?

Question #3: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi implies somewhat that one requires a k'Zayis of Dagan (grain) for the first Se'udah of Sukos, like for the first Se'udah of Pesach?

Question #3 (cont.): Whereas the Gemara says here that one may complement it with kinds of Targima?

Question #4: And finally, from the case of the Apotropus of Agripas it implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not suffice with just one meal?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation is therefore - that Rebbi Eliezer retracted from his posit that one needs as Sukah (for all fourteen meals), but he still holds that the fourteen meals are required.

Yerushalmi: Whereas the Yerushalmi answers citing Rebbi Acha - 'For a Chashuv Mitzvah' - meaning that Lechatchilah one needs to eat in a Sukah, but if he did not, he can complement them on Shemini Atzeres without a Sukah.

Explanation #1: Rashi defines this as fruit, dessert and cooked leek.

Refutation: This is unacceptable however, since Rava concludes in the eighth Perek of Yoma (Daf 79b & 80a) that fruit does not require a Sukah, and it extrapolates it from here, inasmuch as 'If one would think that fruit requires a Sukah, why can one not complement one's Chiyuv with fruit?'

Refutation (cont.): And it refutes the proof by establishing it by a place where fruit is not easily available' or by arguing that 'Miynei Targima' incorporates various species of fruit.

Refutation (concl.): In any event it implies that if fruit does not require a Sukah, one cannot complement with fruit.

Explanation #2: 'Miynei Targima' is therefore defined as meat, fish or other foods that one eats together with bread.

Refuted Inference: One cannot however, extrapolate from here that one can use Miynei Targima to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shalosh Se'udos on Shabbos ...

Refutation: Because it is different there, in that the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 117b) learns from the three times that "ha'Yom" is written in connection with the Manna - which was in place of bread.

Conclusion: But even if we do compare them (with regard to being Yotzei Shalosh Se'udos), this will not include fruit, since, as Tosfos just explained, it does not help with regard to Sukah (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Alternative Text: There are some who have the text 'Kamashma-Lan Keivan de'Bedidah ka'Avid, Ihi Hi' ...

Explanation: Implying that it is because he builds it using the same wood.

Explanation #1: This implies one Sukah for all of Yisrael to sit in one after the other.

Explanation #1 (cont.): It cannot mean that it belongs to them all, since the only way that each one will receive a P'rutah's-worth is via borrowing. Rashi.

Refutation: In vain however, did Rashi present this forced explanation, because the Torah writes "Lach", implying that it precludes partners (See Maharam) ...

Source: As is evident in Reishis ha'Gez (Chulin, Daf 136a) in connection with T'rumah, Chalah, Pe'ah and the many other cases that are cited there.

Source (cont.): In fact even an Esrog, by which the Torah writes "Lachem" (in the plural), the Gemara rules in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 137b) that 'If brothers acquire an Esrog from the kitty, and one of them takes it on Sukos, he is Yotzei provided he has a mandate to eat it ...

Source (cont.): Where there is another Esrog like it for each of the brothers; otherwise, he is not Yotzei.

Source (concl.): Since "Lachem implies that each one owns all of it, and not just part of it.

Refuted Question: And it cannot be compared to "Bigdeichem", "Arisoseichem" and "T'rumoseichem" in Perek Reishis ha'Gez (Chulin, Daf 136a), which incorporate partners.

Implied Question: And the reason that it writes "Lachem" in the plural is ...

Answer: Because it wants to write "u'Lekachtem" (plural), from which the Gemara in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (later, Daf 43a) that 'Each person must take it (and not just Beis-Din)' ...

Refutation (cont.): And seeing as we include 'One Sukah for all of Yisrael', we see that we do not Darshen "Lach" to preclude a borrowed one, but to preclude a stolen one.

Question: The question arises however, that with regard to Tzitzis, the Gemara includes partners, from the word "Bigdeihem", and precludes a borrowed garment from "K'suscha" - in Perek Reishis ha'Gez (Chulin, Daf 136a) ...

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara here then not Darshen in the same way?

Answer: The question is answered according to Rashi, since one has to be Yotzei with a borrowed one, now that we include one Sukah for all of Yisrael.

Question: According to Rebbi Eliezer who requires 'Lachem' by Sukah, two people should not ever be able to be Yotzei in the same Sukah, in which case, every family member ought to need his own Sukah?

Answer: Perhaps based on "Teishvu", 'Ke'ein Taduru', we will permit them to sit together in one Sukah,

Implied Question: And as for the Minhag of the Kahal to purchase a communal Esrog for each member to be Yotzei ...

Answer: Their intention is that each member is Makneh his portion to his friend when he reecites the B'rachah over it on condition that he returns it ...

Reason: Since it is not because they purchased it between them that it should be worse than a Matanah with the intention of returning it, which is considered a Matanah.

Reference: Tosfos already explained it above, in the first Perek (Daf 16b) in connection with 'They forgot to bring a Seifer Torah'.