Question: In this case, the Halachah is not like Rebbi Yehudah, who only validates the four species ...

Source: Since the S'tam Mishnah (in the first Perek (Daf 11a) rules that 'If one severs the vine or a gourd with which one covered the Sukah, it is Kasher'?

Answer: The reason that we Pasken there like Rebbi Yehudah is based on a different Din

Answer (cont.): It learns it from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Nosar - 'Just as Nosar, which is subject to Bal Tosiru, must be burned, so too must Chametz, which is subject to Bal Tosiru, must also be burned'.

Implied Question: Because when the Chachamim said to Rebbi Yehudah 'Asham Taluy and Chatas which comes on a Safek and which are subject to Bal Tosiru, and which you say must be buried, prove you wrong!, Rebbi Yehudah was silent ...

Implied Question (cont.): From which we can infer that he retracted ...

Answer: Even though he remained silent, we will not remain silent!

Answer (cont.): Since he was silent only on account of the discrepancy in his own words - inasmuch as elsewhere, he ruled that Nosar must be buried.

Answer (concl.): Whereas we hold that it must it is subject to burning.

Clarification: Rebbi Yehudah will establish it with regard to the walls.

Question: What can one say according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav who disagrees with him? ...

Question (cont.): When he says in Perek Im Ein Makirin (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 23a & 23b) that 'There are four species of cedars, and these are they: Erez, Katros, Eitz Shemen and B'rosh'?

Answer: According to the texts, earlier in the first Perek (on Daf 14b) that cite, in the Beraisa that goes like Rav, 'Sich'chah bi'Nesarim she'Ein bahen Arba'ah, Divrei ha'Kol Kesheirah', and that do not have the text 'shel Erez', there is no problem ...

Answer (cont.): Since the current Beraisa goes according to Shmuel, and Rav does not consider it authentic.

Explanation #1: Because Rabah holds 'Miyn be'Miyno Chotzetz' ...

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is Safek by him ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Behemah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 70a & 70b) - 'What will be the Din if its sister (the B'chor's) wound around it and brought it out?' - which, Rabeinu Tam explains, pertains to the female together with which it was born.

Precedent: Which it calls 'its sister' - as we find in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Ibid., Daf 114a) - 'We only know "in the milk of its mother; From where do we know that the prohibition extends to the milk of its sister?'

Introduction to Question: And when, in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 9a & 9b), in reply to the Gemara's query, in connection with 'A donkey that did not yet have a B'chor, gives birth to two males ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Does this mean that the Rabanan hold that part of the womb sanctifies, because if only the entire womb sanctifies, then even though 'I Efshafr Letzamtzem', it would be a Chatzitzah?' ...

Question: Rav Ashi replies 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz' ...

Answer: There the Gemara takes it for granted because in part of the womb there is no Chatzitzah.

Implied Question: And even though here too, outside the Eged there is no Chatzitzah, yet Rabah is particular ...

Answer: Perhaps birth is different - since that is normal by the birth of twins.

Clarification: And when the Gemara at the end of 'Sh'tei Midos' (Menachos, Daf 94a), which includes requires all the members of the group to perform Semichah, but not to wave the Korban ...

Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara at the end of 'Sh'tei Midos' (Menachos, Daf 94a), which requires all the members of the group to perform Semichah on the Korban, but not to wave it ...

Reason: Because what should they do? If they all wave it simultaneously, it is a Chatzitzah ... ?'

Clarification (concl.): This goes even according to Rava, who holds here 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz' ...

Reason #1: Since in any event it is a Pircha.

Reason #2: Moreover, with regards to something that is unusual, it is a S'vara to say that it is Chotzetz ...

Source: As the Mishnah states in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 15b) ' ... on his friend's foot, it (the Avodah) is Pasul'.

Implied Question: And in Perek 'Hotzi'u lo' (Yoma, Daf 58a & 58b) Rami bar Chama asks what the Din will be 'If a Kohen receives the blood in a bowl which is inside another bowl - whether Miyn be'Miyno is Chotzetz or not?' ...

Implied Question (cont.): And it concludes that it is not Chotzetz, as the Torah writes "ve'Es Kol K'lei ha'Shareis asher Yeshsrsu bam ba'Kodesh" - two Keilim and one service' ...

Implied Question (concl.): And then it asks the same question regarding 'Someone who places the bast of a palm-tree inside a bowl, whether Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno is Chotzetz or not'?'

Answer: One cannot compare all cases, one to the other.

Clarification #1: One cannot apply the reason here 'That it should not be a Chatzitzah' as it did above ...

Reason #1: Because above it spoke where he tied it to the Lulav, whereas here it speaks where he winds it round his hands, and something that is wound around one's hands is not subject to Chatzitzah.

Introduction to Question: And at the end of Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim, Daf 57a & 57b) where 'Yisachar Ish K'far Barka'i, who wound silks round his hand and performed the Avodah' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And Rashi explains that Chatzitzah invalidates by Kodshim, as the Pasuk writes "ve'Lakach ha'Kohen", 'It must be taken by the Kohen himself' ...

Question: Even though 'Taking via something else is considered taking', according to Rava ...

Answer #1: That speaks in a respectable manner ...

Proof: As is evident at the end of the Perek (Daf 42a) in connection with 'A Lulav that one takes out in a vessel', and on the Kashya that Rava holds 'Taking via something else is considered taking' ...

Proof (cont.): The Gemara replies that that speaks where it is taken in a respectful manner, but not where it is taken in a disrespectful manner.

Conclusion: And there too, even though he wrapped his hands in silk, he did so for his own Kavod, to prevent his hands from becoming dirty with the blood of the limbs.

Conclusion (cont.): And the Gemara there refers to it as 'treating Kodshim with disrespect'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Chatzitzah aside, he was punished simply for denegrating Kodshim ...

Proof: As is evident from the Heavenly Voice that was heard there.

Refutation: This explanation is not correct however, since the Gemara connects it with 'A hyssop that one lengthened with a string'.

Reason #2: It must therefore be due to the fact that Chatzitzah applies exclusively by something that is needed to tie the Lulav - to prevent the species from separating, whereas here, the Lulav does not need the cloth.

Refutation: But this explanation too, is not correct - since (on the contrary) this is all the more reason for it to be a Chatzitzah ...

Proof: As is evident in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Yoma, Daf 58aa & 58b), where, in the case where 'One placed a bowl inside another bowl', the Gemara tries to resolve the She'eilah from 'The Kohen stood on his friend's foot, Pasul' ...

Proof (cont.): And it rejects it because 'The foot is different, since he is not Mevatel it'.

Reason #3: It must therefore speak where he made the cloth into a kind of handle for the Lulav, in which case Chatzitzah is not applicable ...

Reason #3 (cont.): Since the entire Lulav is outside his hand, and he is holding via the protruding handle which he made from the cloth ...

Precedent: And it is similar to the hysopp that he lengthened with a piece of string ...

Conclusion: Which Rabah does not consider a 'Lekichah Tamah', whereas Rava does.

Implied Question: And as for the case of 'A Lulav that one carried out in a K'li', cited at the end of the Perek ...

Answer: It is not speaking where he is holding the sides of the K'li, but where he places his hand underneath its base, or where he is holding the handle of the K'li (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'Into a stone trough, since all Ma'aseh Parah was done in stone vessels'.

Refutation #1: One cannot say this however, since the tube itself is subject to Tum'ah ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah, 23a), where the Gemara (citing the Mishnah in Parah 5:4) says that 'A tube that one cuts for a Chatas (i.e. the ashes of a Parah Adumah) should be rendered Tamei and then Toveled'.

Refutation #2: Also in many places in Maseches Parah, the Mishnah records how they would fill barrels to mix (the ashes) in them.

Refutation #3: Moreover it implies that other Keilim are even preferred for mixing ...

Source: As the Mishnah states (in Parah, 5:5) 'One can perform the mixing in any vessel, even in vessels made of dung/marble, of stone or of earth ...

Source (cont.): Which although they are not considered Keilim regarding Tum'ah, they are considered Keilim regarding the mixing' - and even more so vessels.

Explanation #2: And the ruling that all Ma'aseh Parah is performed in stone vessels - pertains specifically to the seven days that one separates the Kohen who burns the cow to the room in front of the Birah which was actually called 'The Lishkas Beis Even' - as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Yoma (Daf 2a).

Reason: And they did it in order to raise the standard (See also Tosfos Chagigah, Daf 23a DH 'Shefoferes', Tosfos Yoma, 2a DH 'she'Kol' & Tosfos Chulin, 9b DH 'Teme'ah').

Text #1: This is the text that appears in all editions.

Question #1: Firstly, why does the Gemara ask from 'Nesinah', seeing as by Parah, the Torah writes a Lashon of 'Lekichah' - "ve'Lakchu La'Tamei me'Afar Sereifas ha'Chatas", and he is now taking it via a tube, which is 'via something else'?

Question #2: And secondly, "ve'Nasan" refers to the water and not to the ashes? ...

Proof #1: As is clearly evident in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 34b & 35a) when it asks from "ve'Nasan", which implies that the water is detached 'But it must be attached? ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Since the Pasuk says "Mayim Chayim el Keli".

Proof #2: Also in the second Perek of Sotah (Daf 16b & 17a), the Gemara ppoints out that there are two Pesukim - 1. "ve'Nasan alav", implying that one first places the ashes ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Since the plain P'shat in the Pasuk implies that "alav" refers to the ashes ...

Proof #2 (cont.): And 2. "Mayim Chayim el Keli", which implies that there should be nothing between the water and the vessel.

Proof #3: And in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 72b & 73a) the Gemara says 'The Torah writes "ve'Lakchu" "ve'Nasan", even if two take and one places - that even if two people take the ashes and one places the water.

Answer #1: It may well be however, that "Nasan" pertains to both - the water and the ashes.

Text #2: Rashi however, has the text 'Why, seeing asds the Torah writes "ve'Lakchu" "ve'Nasan?

Text #2 (cont.): This is therefore a proof that 'Taking via something else is called taking'.

Question: It ought to have said 'Since its Shi'ur is taller than all of them'?

Explanation #1: "Hodu" at the beginning of the Perek and "Hodu" at the end of Hallel - From "Hodu" until the end of Hallel is all one chapter, of the chapters of Tehilim (Rashi).

Refuted Explanation: Some commentaries explain 'The beginning of the Pasuk and the end of the Pasuk' ...

Refutation: But this is wrong, since one only shakes once in "Hodu" ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the same applies to "Ana Hash-m Hoshi'ah Na" like Beis Hillel, but not by "Ana Hash-m Hatzlichah Na" like Beis Shamai.

Implied Question: Beis Hillel's reason, despite the fact that "Ana Hash-m Hoshi'ah Na" is neither the beginning of the Perek nor the end, one shakes there ...

Answer: Because the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (16) writes "Az Yeran'nu Atzei ha'Ya'ar, mi'Lifnei Hash-m ki Va Lish'pot ha'Aretz" (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), after which it writes "Hodu la'Hashem ki Tov, ki Le'olam Chasdo" ...

Answer (cont.): And "ve'Imru Hoshi'einu Elokei Yish'einu" - "Yeran'nu" (they will jubilate) in that one will shake the Lulav and praise Hash-m with "Hodu" and with "Ana Hash-m Hoshi'ah Na."

Current Minhag #1: Nowadays, when the Minhag is that the Shatz says "Yomar Na Yisrael" and the Tzaibur answer "Hodu", and likewise by "Yomru Na Beis Aharon: and by "Yomru Na Yir'ei Hash-m", the Tzibur shake by each "Hodu" that they respond ...

Current Minhag #1 (cont.): But the Shatz does not shake.

Current Minhag #2: Other commentaries however, maintain that the Shatz shakes together with the Tzibur who are answering, each time they respond "Hodu" and shake, and he therefore shakes by "Yomar Na" and "Yomru Na", as well.

She'eilah: When reciting the B'rachah we do not find an explicit ruling as to whether one is Chayav to shake when one takes it ...

Proof #1: However, since the Gemara says later in the Perek (42a) 'A Katan who knows how to shake, is Chayav to take the Lulav' - it implies that he shakes it when reciting the B'rachah even though he doesn't yet know how to recite Hallel.

Proof #2: Moreover, since the Beraisa in at the end of 'Tefilas ha'Shachar (Maseches B'rachos, Daf 30a & 30b) rrules that 'If someone sets out early on a journey, one brings him a Shofar to blow, a Lulav to shake or a Megilah to read'

Proof #2 (cont.): It implies that one shakes Lulav even when not reciting Hallel,

Introduction to Chidush: The Gemara, in Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah (Menachos, Daf 62a & 62b) lists all the cases that require waving ...

Chidush: And possibly, it is not all the cases that need to be waved in this way - only those of the Two Loaves of Shavu'os, and of the Lulav ...

Reason: Because the Gemara in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 16a) states that the final (annual) decree is sealed on Pesach on the produce, on Shavu'os on the fruit of the tree and on Sukos, on the water supply ...

Conclusion: And that explains why the shaking of the Lulav requires away from oneself and back.

Clarification: The Aruch, on the word 'Na', cites the Yerushalmi which learns that one is required to shake three times on each word ...

Yerushalmi, She'eilah #1: Rebbi Zeira then asks 'Whether it is one this way and one that way, or whether they are both considered one' ...

Interpretation: What he means is that, regarding the three times the Gemara requires, is moving it away considered one and moving it back another, or whether moving it away and back are considered one, in which one needs to shake it away and back three times?

Yerushalmi, Introduction to She'eilah #2: And he asks the same She'eilah in connection with the Beraisa in Nidah (Perek ha'Ishah, Daf 62a) Seven dyes remove a bloodstain: 'And one needs to rub three times with each one' ...

Yerushalmi, She'eilah #2: Rebbi Ze'ira asks 'Whether it is one this way and one that way, or whether they are both considered one?', and the She'eilah remains unresolved.

Halachah: Since it remains unresolved, we go Lechumra - three times for each one' (Yerushalmi).

Bavli: In fact, the Bavli asks the same Sheilah there (in Nidah, Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 63a), where Rebbi Yirmiyah asks 'Whether away and back is considered one, or whether away is one and back is another?'

Bavli (cont.): And similarly in Perek Eilu Menachos (Daf 76a) in connection with 'Three hundred rubbings and five hundred beatings' ...

Bavli (concl.): And Rebbi Yirmiyah asks 'Whether away and back is considered one, or whether away is one and back is another?'