Question: Since he (Aba Shaul) does not hold of the 'Hilch'sa', why not even outside the Mikdash? ...

Reason: Seeing as the Pasuk does not mention Mikdash.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have asked from where Aba Shaul knows one of 'Ba'al' and one that grows in the mountains'?

Answer: Presumably he doesn't agree (that they are Kasher).

Answer (cont.): Neither does he hold like the Rabanan who Darshen later (on Amud Beis) "Arvei Nachal", 'two', but like Rebbi Akiva, who says 'One Hadas and one Aravah'.

Answer (concl.): But the Halachah is not like Rebbi Akiva, as is evident later.

Halachah: According to that, one must take care to take for the Lulav only an Aravah that grew by the brook ...

Reason: Because one cannot learn two D'rashos from "Arvei", both as the GemaraDarshens later and as it Darshens here.

Conclusion: Because all the Tana'im, here and later are cited in the Toras Kohanim - implying that one Tana learns like this, and the other Tana, like that.

Implied Question: It would have sufficed to present just the Simanim of the Aravah ...

Answer: Only he wants to be Machshir also Aravos that do not have the listed Simanim - such as 'Chilfa Gila'; So he mentioned the Simanim of a Tzaftz'fa - to indicate that these exclusively (are Pasul).

Definition: The end of the stomach, which is called 'paunch', and which is shaped like a hat and a cup ...

Halachah/Source: And the Beraisa states 'If one finds a needle that has pierced one side of the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos - but has not gone right through ('Nekev Mefulash') - it is Kasher, because the skin stops it up and protects it ...

Halachah/Source (cont.): On both sides - where it has gone right through - it is Treifah.

Nowadays: And the one that one calls 'Beis ha'Kosos' nowadays, there is no distinction - that will render it Kasher - since its wall is thin. And it is the one that is generally called 'Huvlila' (Rashi).

Implied Question: And if one asks that it is illogical to render it T'reifah, since only half the skin has been perforated ...

Answer: The answer is that in reality, the hole went right through, only we suspect that it healed ...

Precedent: In the same way that we suspect this at the beginning of 'Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 43b) in connection with 'A splinter that is lodged in the esophagus - according to the opinion (there) that is stringent by 'Safek D'rusah'.

Implied Question: And when the Tana says there (42a) 'The Meses and the Beis ha'Kosos that are pierced right through to the outside' - implying that the hole must be Mefulash ...

Answer: It does not mean Davka Mefulash to the outside, but that the hole is in the outer section - to preclude where the hole goes from one into the other (i.e. from the Meses to the Beis ha'Kosos).

Implied Question: And when it says (there) 'In the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos on one side, it is Kasher' ...

Answer: It must be speaking where it is on the inside, towards the excrement ...

Reason: Because, if it was referring to the outside - towards the body cavity, it would be T'reifah even if there was no hole at all, only a needle was found in the body cavity ...

Reason (cont.): Since we would assume that it must have holed its way through to arrive there.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, does not agree that the animal should be T'reifah if there is a hole only in half the wall of the Meses ...

Explanation #2: He therefore holds that half the wall of the Meses on one side is also Kasher ...

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana mentions 'the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos is ...

Answer #1: To teach us a Chidush - that even though the entire skin of one of them has been pierced, it is nevertheless Kasher until they have both been pierced.

Answer #1 (cont.): And having stated 'On one side it is Kasher', he goes on to say 'On two sides, it is T'reifah', even though that is obvious.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara thought that even where both sides are holed it is Kasher, seeing as it is lying on the Meses and stuck to it with fat, this protects from allowing the excrement from oozing out ...

Precedent: Similar to the Chulcholes (the membrane that keeps the entrails in position) that is holed, and which the thighs keep intact (Ibid. 50a).

Clarification: And the ramifications of the statement that they have switched their names is ...

Distinction #1: That should not make the mistake of saying that 'On one side is Kasher' refers to the Havlulisa - the Meses, which they now call the 'Beis ha'Kosos' ...

Distinction #1 (cont.): But what they call the 'Huvlila' - which is the erstwhile 'Beis ha'Kosos', is T'reifah even on one side, since a complete skin has been holed.

Distinction #2: And that one should also not make the mistake of saying that 'On two sides is T'reifah' refers to what they now call the'Beis ha'Kosos', which is the 'Meses' ...

Distinction #2 (cont.):But what they now call the 'Huvlila', the erstwhile 'Bei ha'Kosos',is Kasher even on two sides, like the Chulcholes which is holed and is kept intact by the thighs.

Explanation #1: As Rashi explains = 'Since we Pasken in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6a) that 'Bavel is like eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Inasmuch as it the Shali'ach of a Get need not testify that it was written and signed in his presence, since Yeshivos and experts in writing 'li'Shemah are common, and there are also witnesses available to substatiate it; and that is what they now call 'Birsif', since it changed its name.

Explanation #2: At the end of 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos, Daf 36b & 37a) he adds another explanation - in that the difference is concerning the name of the man and the woman, the name of his town and of hers.

Refutation: But this is not correct ...

Question: Since Bavel is the name of the country ...

Proof #1: As the Gemara points out in Kidushin (Daf 71a), where it refers to Eretz Yisrael as 'the dough of Bavel' ...

Proof #2: And the Gemara asks in Perek Asarah ichsin (Ibid.) 'What are the borders of Bavel?'

Question (cont.): And one does not write the country in the Get, only the town?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that ' "Anaf" is one, "Eitz" is two and "Avos" is three'.

Question #1: The Gemara earlier (on Daf 32b) establishes "Anaf Eitz" to mean that its leaves cover its wood', and "Eitz Avos", that it is plaited lake plaits' ...

Question #2: Why do we not then also Darshen "P'ri Eitz Hadar" to mean three (Esrogim)?

Answer to Question #2: Because from the D'rashah of "(P'ri) Eitz" we learn (later on Daf 35a) that the wood tastes like the fruit.

Halachah: However many Hadasim or Aravos one adds, it isnot considered 'Bal Tosif' ...

Halachah (cont.): Unless one adds another species, as Tosfos explained at the end of 'Ra'uhu Beis-Din' (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 28b, DH 'u'Mana' [See Mesores ha'Shas]).

Clarification: It is for the same reason that we invalidate an Esrog that is not complete, because it is not 'Lekichah Tamah'

Clarification (cont.): On the second day however, we are not strict, even though we are fussy about there being four species, a distinction that Tosfos already explained at the beginning of the Perek (Daf 29b, DH 'Ba'inan').

Clarification: The Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 27a) concludes that 'The four spcies are only crucial if he doesn't have them, but if he does, they are not'.

Explanation #1: The B'hag explains 'not crucial' to mean that one need not pick them up simultaneously, but even one by one will suffice ...

Reason: Since we Pasken that 'The Lulav need not be bound'.

Question:It is difficult to say this however, because, since they are all part of the same Mitzvah, how can one without the other?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu noted in his Seifer however that 'They only learned that it is crucial on account of 'Tamah' if one doesn't have, but if one does, it is 'Tamah', even if one does not bind them together ...

Source: As the Gemara learned above (on Daf 33a), according to the Rabanan who do not Darshen 'Lekichah' 'Lekichah' (from 'Agudas Eizov') ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he understands that according to Rebbi Yehudah, who does Darshen 'Lekichah', it is not Tamah unless it is bound.

Question: But he (Shmuel) holds like Rebbi Tarfon, not Rebbi Akiva?

Answer: All this is part of the Diyuk - in that it is coming to prove that Shmuel follows his own reasoning, that he holds like Rebbi Tarfon ...

Answer (cont.): Because if he would have threatened them with something that he does not hold, to induce them to sell more cheaply, he ought to have threatened them with Rebbi Akiva, who is even more lenient.

Answer (concl.): And the Gemara refutes this - 'On the contrary, the threat from Rebbi Tarfon was greater, since three cut Hadasim are more common than one that is not cut, in which case there is no proof that he holds like Rebbi Tarfon.

Intoduction to Question: There is a problem however, from Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 30a), where, in connection with pots on Pesach Shmuel said that 'They should leave them until after Pesach and use them either with the same species or with other ones ...

Intoduction to Question (cont.): And the Gemara explains that Shmuel follows his own reasoning - because he said to those pot-vendors 'lower your prices, or, on your account, I will Darshen like Rebbi Shimon!' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Who permits Chametz after Pesach as long as it not 'Be'en' (actually in existence) ...

Question: A clear indication that he did not threaten with something that he did not hold by.

Answer: Because there, why would he need to threaten them with something that he did not hold by ...

Answer (cont.): Like he did here - in order to induce them to sell more cheaply so that the Mitzvah should be more readily available, that people should not hold back on account of the exorbitant price.

Question: If he holds like Rebbi Tarfon, why did he not tell them so?

Precedent: As the Gemara asks in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Ibid.), where it answers 'It was Rav's territory'.

Answer: Here he abstained from doing so because of 'Hidur Mitzvah'.

Introduction to Question: At the beginning of Bava Basra (Daf 5a & 5b) where Ravina surrounded Runya on all four sides, and where the latter came before Rava

Introduction to Question: Who ruled 'Go and offer him whatever he claims! Otherwise I will judge you like Rav Huna according to Rebbi Yossi, who said 'It all goes according to the walls he put up' ...

Question: The reason he did not rule accordingly was ...

Answer: Because Ravina was appeased and was Mochel him for less.