Implied Question: Rebbi Eliezer does in fact, hold like that, as we see in 'ha'Gozel Basra' (Bava Kama, Daf 117a) ...

Answer: Only the Gemara wants to establish his words in all circumstances.

Explanation #1; Reason #1: This is neither stolen nor borrowed, since he is Koneh with Shinuy Ma'aseh and Shinuy ha'Shem.

Reason #2: Moreover, he is not obligated to demolish the building due to 'Takanas ha'Shavim - only to return the value of the wood.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek ha'Yashein (earlier, Daf 27b) that 'The Rabanan concede (that one is not Yotzei) by a stolen Sukah' ...

Answer: It is not speaking about someone who steals a Sukah that is attached to the ground or wood which he then uses as S'chach, but someone who steals a Sukah that is made on top of a wagon or a ship, which is subject to theft seeing as itis not attached to the ground ...

Answer (cont.): In which case he pays, not the value but the actual Sukah as it is, fully built ...

Reason: 'Takanas ha'Shavim does not apply, since he did not take any trouble to build it, nor did he spend any money on it. Consequently, it has the Din of a stolen article. So Rashi explains.

Refutation: This is a Dochek however, because, since the Torah writes "L'cha", from which the Gemara in 'ha'Yashein', Daf 27b) precludes Gazul ...

Refutation (cont.): And if one steals wood and uses it as S'chach it is a Shinuy that is reversible and is therefore not Koneh min ha'Torah (See Maharsha), and as for Takanas Marish, that is only mi'de'Rabanan, and the Pasuk we establish mi'd'Oraysa (See Maharsha) ...

Refutation (Extention): What's more, one can establish the Pasuk even mi'de'Rabanan, not on a wagon or on a ship (See Maharsha) ...

Refutation (Extention [cont.]): In a case where Reuven built a Sukah in Shimon's Chatzer with his consent, and Shimon came and took hold of Reuven and threw him out of his Sukah ...

Reason: This is not considered borrowed, since it is not in Reuven's domain ...

Reason (cont.): Nor is it comparable to Karka which stands in the R'shus of the owner, which is why Karka cannot be stolen (See Maharam).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they are not compared to learn one from the other - since it is only a Kal va'Chomer, out of all the thirteen Midos via which one Darshens the Torah, that one may Darshen on one's own (without a fixed tradition).

Question: This is very difficult, however, since even 'S'muchin' - two P'sukim that the Torah juxtaposes, the Torah permits one to Darshen

Source: As the Gemara states at the beginning of Yevamos (Daf 4a) 'From where do we learn 'S'muchin' min ha'Torah? As the Pasuk writes (in Tehilim, 111) 'S'muchin La'ad le'Olam Asuyim be'Emes ve'Yashar" ...

Question (cont.): How much more so a Hekesh, two things that are compared in the sdame Pasuk?

Question (concl.): And even Rebbi Yehudah, who Darshens 'S'muchin' there where it is evident and superfluous, as the Gemara explains there, concedes with regard to a Hekesh?

Explanation #2: In fact, one may Darshen all the Midos except for a Gezeirah Shavah, whbich one may Darshen only if one learned it from one's Rebbe ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And here they are arguing over a S'vara, since there are certain things that cannot be compared.

Conclusion: Perhaps he holds that the term 'Hadar' is confined to fruit exclusively.

Question: How can one ascribe it to the fact that he (Rebbi Yehudah) requires 'Hadar' - when he himself declares Pasul a Lulav that is bound with golden threads, which they used to use in order to beautify it?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara could have retorted 'And according to your reasoning ... ?'

Inference: One can deduce from here that if one does not find a Kasher Erog, one can recite a B'rachah over one that is Pasul ...

Proof: Since as it mentions 'a quince or a pomegranate'.

Refutation: One can refute this however (See Maharam).

Conclusion: One can however extrapolate that it permitted - like a Pasul Lulav, which the Rabanan permit in times of emergency.

Question: How much more so according to the Rabanan, as it implies above that according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is because he requires binding that, if he binds it with another species, he will be taking five species ...

Question (con.): But not according to the Rabanan, who do not require binding, because each one is considered a separate entity?

Support: And that is what the Gemara says specifically in Perek Eilu hein ha'Nechenakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 88b) in connection with 'Whoever adds, subtracts!' - that if we hold that 'The Lulav does not need binding', then each species is considered a separate entity.

Answer: It is speaking here where one places the extra species outside the 'bunch', according to Rebbi Yehudah (See Maharsha).

Question: In that case, the other species that he brings ought not to be considered 'an addition' (Mosif) - as is the case according to the Rabanan, who hold 'Ein Tzarich Eged'?

Answer: It is not the same thing, because, when (in the latter case) one ties it with a different species, it cannot be considered 'Mosif', since that is not the way it grows - and the species in the Lulav need to be held the way they grow, as the Gemara says later (on Daf 45b) ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah who requires Eged, it must be considered Mosif to the bunch, since every bunch (Agudah) is not the way it grows ...

Answer (concl.): And what the Gemara means here is that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, that if one brings another species, and takes it the way it grows - even outside the 'bunch', it is considered 'Mosif', and how much more so according to the Rabanan.

Implied Question: When the Gemara therefore says in Sanhedrin (Daf 88b) that each species is considered a separate entity' ...

Answer: It is referring to the Din of 'Whoever adds subtracts', in that one has fulfilled the Mitzvah, only one transgresses (the La'av of) 'Bal Tosif'.

Conclusion: And that explains the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'One may not add to the four species of the Lulav' ...

Conclusion (cont.): That is presumably synonymous with the Rabanan who argue with Rebi Yehudah, who do not require Eged, and who maintain that 'Bal Tosif' nevertheless applies - where he took them the way they grow.

Explanation #1: This implies that 'Karsi' is equivalent to the color that is called 'vert' (green) in old French ...

Explanation #2: Whereas the Mishnah in the first Perek of B'rachos (Daf 9b), which states 'From the time that one can distinguish between Techeiles (dark blue) and Karsi' implies somewhat that it is similar to dark blue...

Source: As the Gemara in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 43b explains - 'Techeiles is similar to the sea, which is similar to the sky (at night-time) - which is dark blue.

Support, Explanation #1: In the Yerushalmi however, it implies that it (Techeiles) is green like grass ...

Support, Explanation #1 (cont.): When, in connection with 'Between Techeiles and leek', it concludes 'Techeiles is similar to the Sea, which is similar to grass, and grass to the sky'.

Explanation #3: Whereas in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 47b) it implies that 'Yarok' is similar to the yoke of an egg, which is yellow ...

Explanation #3: Since on the Gemara's statement there (regarding the color of a T'reifah lung) 'Such as a T'reifah egg', it asks 'What sort of 'Yerokah' is Kasher?', it replies 'like Karsi'.

Support #1: And in the Tosefta in Nega'im (Perek 1) too, it implies that it is like wax, since the Beraisa states 'The ultimate 'Yarok' - Rebbi Eliezer says is like wax and a yellowish plant); According to Sumchus, it is like the wing of a peacock and the outer section of a date-palm'.

Support #2: And this is also implied in the second Perek of Nidah (Daf 19a) where, in connection with the five kinds of Tamei blood of a woman, the Mishnah cites Akavya ben Mahalalel, who declares 'Yarok' Tamei ...

Support #2 (cont.): And the Gemara asks there from where we know that the blood of a Nidah is red - implying that a woman's blood is not Tamei unless it is a reddish color ...

Support #2 (concl.): And of all the above-mentioned colors, the only one that has a reddish hue is yellow.

Proof: And the Pasuk too, proves that this is what 'Yarok' is, when it writes in Tehilim (68) " ... and her wings (ve'Evrosehah) with brilliant gold (bi'Yerakrak Charutz") - which Menachem, in Seifer ha'Mechaberes, explains as gold that comes from Chavilah ...

Alternative Translation: Whereas Dunash translates "Charutz" as a precious stone.

Source: This is actually a Machlokes Amora'im - since, in connection with the Pasuk "Vayarek es Chanichav" (Bereishis 14:14), the Bereishis Rabah (Perek 43) cites ...

Opinion #1: Resh Lakish, who explains 'He equipped them with precious stones and pearls', as the Pasuk writes "ve'Evrosehah bi'Yerakrak Charutz" ..

Opinion #1: So that they should not be desirous of the money, but rather busy themselves with rescuing the captives.

Opinion #2: Whereas Rebbi Levi explains that 'He equipped them with the Parshah of policemen' - as the Pasuk writes in Parshas Shoftim) "Who is the man who is afraid and soft-hearted" (i.e. of the sins that he has committed) ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): Causing them to be ashamed when they were forced to leave the battle-field.

Opinion #3: The Gemara in 'Arba'ah Nedarim' (Daf 32a), on the other hand, commenting on "Vayarek es Chanichav" cites a Machlokes Rav & Shmuel: One says 'That he equipped them with Torah - i.e. the Parshah of policemen ...

Opinion 4: Whilst the other says that he equipped them with gold ...

Source: Which he learns from the aforementioned Pasuk "bi'Yerakrak Charutz" ...

Proof (cont.): And gold is similar to the color yellow.

Conclusion: In any event, the basic color of an Esrog is similar to that of wax.

Conclusion: Nevertheless, those Esrogim that come before us that are as green as leek, are Kasher even according to Rebbi Yehudah ...

Conclusion (cont.): Provided they turn into the color of other Esrogim, even if they are detached, after they have been lying in a K'li for a long time ...

Reason: Since for sure they are fully ripe.

Explanation #1: This is not synonymous with the Machlokes of 'Esrog ha'Boser' (an Esrog that is not yet ripe), over which Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue later in the Perek (on Daf 36a) ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because even if it is as large as a nut or an egg, Rebbi Akiva declares it Pasul (later on Daf 36a - See Maharam), due to the fact that it either cannot be re-planted or because he requires 'Hadar' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas in the current case, the Tana declares it Pasul even assuming he does not require 'Hadar', since the fruit is not fully grown.

Refuted Explanation #2: Not like Rashi later who defines 'Esrog ha'Boser' as 'one that is the size of a white bean' ...

Refutation: Because that Shi'ur pertains to grapes (B'rachos, 36b), which are small even when they are ripe ...

Refutation (cont.): Whilst an Esrog, which is a large fruit, is considered 'Boser' even if it is larger than a white bean, if it stands to continue growing ...

Explanation (cont.): And here it is speaking where it does not stand to grow any larger, in which case even Rebbi Akiva, who declares Pasul there, will be Machshir here - if it is the size of a nut according to one, the size of en egg, according to the other ...

Reason: Since it is fully grown.

Explanation (cont.): Whereas smaller than that is not considered fully grown, even if it does not stand to grow any larger ...

Reason: Seeing as there are many things that will never ripen fully, such as grapes, where many of them never pass the stage of Boser.

Explanation #2: It may also well be that even the Rabanan who are Machshir there, will declare Pasul here, there where the Esrog is smaller, since a Boser Esrog is more of a fruit than a small Esrog.

Support: In fact, the Yerushalmi in the first Perek of Ma'asros (Halachah 3) states that according to Rebbi Akiva, a Boser Esrog is not considered a fruit, whereas according to the Chachamim, it is.

Clarification: It is ben Azai (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) later in the Perek (on Daf 35a) who learns like this. Other D'rashos are cited there.

Introduction to Question: At the end of 'Kisuy ha'Dam' (Chulin, Daf 89a & 89b) when Rava says 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu', and one may therefore cover (the blood) with earth from an Ir ha'Nidachas ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And where the Gemara queries that from the Beraisa which invalidates, even Bedi'eved, a Shofar and a Lulav of Avodah Zarah ...

Question: It could have asked from our Mishnah, which invalidates the Lulav of an Asheirah ...

Answer: Only it preferred to ask from the Beraisa, because it initially concludes by Lulav and Shofar 'Taka Yatza, Natal Yatza' (See Maharam).

Precedent #1: The Gemara gives the same answer with regard to the Beraisa at the end of 'Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 89a & 89b) - 'If he took (a Lulav of Avodah Zarah) he is not Yotzei' ...

Precedent #2: And the same answer the Gemara is forced to give on Shofar, when the Tana says there 'If he blew, he is not Yotzei' (See Maharsha).

Question: In Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf, 28a & 28b) - 'One may not blow on a Shofar of Avodah-Zarah, but if one did, one is Yotzei'; and likewise in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos, Daf 103b & 104a), where Rava declares Kasher a Chalitzah that is performed with a Sandal of Avodah Zarah ...

Question (cont.): We do not say 'Michtas Shi'ureih', because ...

Answer #1: That speaks by the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri, which is subject to Bitul (negation), whereas when the Tana rules that he is not Yotzei, he is referring to the Avodah Zarah of a Yisrael, which can never be negated (Avodah Zarah 42b).

Question: An Avodah Zarah of a Nochri too, the moment a Yisrael picks it up, it becomes his ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah Zarah, Daf 42a) 'The Chachamim decreed - suspecting that he may pick it up and then negate it'?

Answer: It speaks where he picked it up with the intention of not acquiring it ...