Question: On what grounds does the Gemara think that it is Pasul on account of an epithet? Does the write 'Hadas' ...

Question (cont.): Why, even a 'Hirduf' would be Kasher, had the Torah not written "Derachehah Darchei No'am"?

Refutation: Even though Rashi mentions 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh', the case here is actually 'Dichuy Me'ikara' ...

Reason: Seeing as at the beginning of Yom-Tov, it was not fit, as is evident later, regarding where 'They turned black on Erev Yom-Tov'.

Implied Question: Granted with regard to Kodshim, we take for granted that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy' ...

Example #1 & #2: In the case of 'Someone who separates a female animal for his Pesach, in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 98a & 98b), and in that of 'An animal belonging to two Partners' in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 12a & 12b), and in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 7a & 7b) ...

Answer: By a Mitzvah the Gemara asks a She'eilah.

Implied Question: And if one ventures to ask from the Gemara (on Amud Beis) in the case where they turned black which concludes that 'Dichuy Me'ikara Lo havi Dichuy'?

Answer: It cannot be compared to the case here, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 32b, at the end of DH 'Asheirah') - that it is different there since one is able to remove them...

Answer: In fact, the Gemara in Zevachim in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Daf 34b & 35a) is Machshir even by Kodshim for that reason ...

Source: As the Mishnah rules, in connection with 'A Kasher person receives the blood and hands it over to someone who is Pasul' that he should return it to the Kasher person' ...

Source (cont.): And, in answer to the Kashya why it is not Dichuy, Rav Ashi replies 'Whatever one is able to rectify is not considered Dachuy.

Qualification #1: It is not however, completely similar to our case, since it was initially fit before it became unfit, and the Gemara later concludes that one cannot resolve from it (Dichuy Me'ikara) that Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh, can once more become fit, even though one is able to remove them (See Maharam).

Qualification #2: Similarly, the case where a person brought a Korban and 'converts', who has the ability to return, yet the Gemara says in Zevachim (Daf 12b & 13a) 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh, Yidacheh' (Since it was rejected, it remains rejected').

Qualification #3: Furthermore the Gemara says in Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Zevachim, Daf 59a & 59b) 'All Kodshim that were Shecthted before the Mizbe'ach became defective, remain Pasul even afterwards, because 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh, Yidacheh'.

Conclusion: One therefore needs to draw a distinction between the cases.

Question: And the reason that it compares the case of Kisuy ha'Dam to 'Niktam Rosho', even though it is possible to uncover it ...

Answer: Nevertheless it should be considered Dichuy - seeing as he became Patur from covering it, and is not Chayav to remove it from the status of Dachuy in order to cover it again.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara suggests, based on 'Avar ve'Laktan' that it is a Machlokes Tana'im, it could have refuted it ...

Implied Question (cont.): In that the opinion that holds there 'Ein Dachuy;, that is only because it is posible to rectify it ...

Implied Question (concl.): But here where it is not (he will concede that) 'Yesh Dichuy'.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have taught us their Machlokes where he removed them be'Heter - on Erev Yom-Tov after he tied them ...

Answer: And the reason that it presents the Machlokes be'Isur - on Yom-Tov is, to teach us that even in such a case, the Chachamim are Machshir ,,,

Reason: Because 'Ein Dichuy'.

Alternative Text: There are some texts that read 'Adrabah ... (the opposite is true)' , as we find later (on Daf 35b) in connection with where a Lulav is stricken with acne.

Question: The difficulty with that text however, is that when the Gemara concludes 'But this is how one must learn ... ', it could just as well have concluded by reverting it ...

Question (cont.): If one diminished them, it is Kasher - that speaks specifically in one location', where the remaining few berries are all in one location ...

Precedent: Just as the Gemara concludes later regarding 'acne'? (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Conclusion: But if one does not read 'Adrabah' there is no problem, since the Gemara then maintains that they are the same regarding berries, even though there is a distinction with regard to acne.

Text #1: This is Rashi's text.

Text #2: Others gave the text 'And he holds that Lulav does not require binding; and even if it does, it is merely 'a designation'.

Refutation: But this is not correct ...

Reason: Because if it requires binding, it will be Pasul on account of "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy' - assuming we learn Lulav from Sukah, as the Gemara said earlier (Daf 11b).

Clarification #1: Specifically regarding Mitzvos, as Tosfos explained earlier (Amu Alef, DH 'Niktam').

Clarification #2: Nor is the She'eilah of 'Niktam' resolved, as Tosfos explained there as well.

Source: Their basic Machlokes is in 'Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah' (Shabbos, Daf 133a) in connection with 'Peforming Milah on flesh which has Tzara'as'.

Introduction to Question: At the end of Perek 'Safek Achal' (Kerisus, Daf 20b & 21a) in connection with 'Shoveling coal on Shabbos, which automatically become ignited' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): The Gemara states that 'the one that rules "Chayav" holds like Rebbi Yehudah by "Davar she'Ein Miskaven", and the one who holds "Patur", like Rebbi Shimon'.

Proof: It must be a case of 'P'sik Reisheih', since Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Chayav' - because if it was not, it would only be Asur ...

Question: That being the case, why does Rebbi Shimon hold that he is Patur?

Answer: 'Ein Miskaven' there means that he has no need for them to burn, and he is Patur according to Rebbi Shimon because it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah' (a Melachah which he does not need)' ...

Precedent #1: Like 'Someone who digs a pit and only needs the earth', who is Patur according to Rebbi Shimon, even though it is 'P'sik Reisheih'.

Precedent #2: And like 'Somone who catches a fish and squeezes it (for its blood)' in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, Daf 75a).

Conclusion: And the same applies to when the Gemara answers here 'That he an extra Hosha'ana' - he is Patur because it is a Melachah she'EInah Tzerichah le'Gufa' ...

Implied Question: Even though he is (generally) Patur Aval Asur, even according to Rebbi Shimon ...

Answer: Here it is permitted because it is a Mitzvah.

Reference: Tosfos elaborated on this issue in Kesuvos, (Daf 6a & 6b) in connection with 'a cloth that is squeezed into a hole in a barrel').

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that he is Patur when he has another Hosha'ana' - because it is then not considered 'Tikun K'li'.