Implied Question: The Gemara could have said that 'he will carry out of the R'shus ha'Yachid into the R'shus ha'Rabim' ...

Answer #1: Only in most locations and circumstances the suspicion that he will carry four Amos in the street ('Ha'avarah') exists, but not that he will carry from the R'shus ha'Yachid ('Hotza'ah',) ...

Example #1: If the Lulav is lying in a Karm'lis, in an enclosure or in a garden, where there is no Isur d'Oraysa of Hotza'ah, only of Ha'avarah (in the R'shus ha'Rabim).

Example #2: Or if he picked it up in order to take it but not to carry it out, and then decided to carry it out, he will be Patur, unless he stopped to rest whilst carrying it, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 5b) - Rashi.

Refutation: This (latter) explanation however, is not correct, since regarding Ha'avarah too, if initially he had in mind not to carry it four Amos, he will not be Chayav even if he subsequently did so, unless he stopped to rest in the middle.

Conclusion: The first explanation is the correct one.

Example #3: Alternatively, from the R'shus ha'Yachid to the R'shus ha'Rabim has a sign to remember, and there is no room to decree, unlike four Amos in the street, where it is easy to forget and carry four Amos.

Clarification: As stated in the Mishnah - and since the concession to take it is confined to one's house, he will remember, and will not come to carry.

Implied Question: If so, why not institute that one takes it at home on any of the seven days that fall on Shabbos?

Answer: Th Gemara (already) knew that part of the reason is because the first day is d'Oraysa.

Clarification: Not that we really don't know, since the Gemara says at the beginning of Beitzah (Daf 4b) that nowadays we do know ...

Clarification (cont.): Only the Gemara made out as if we don't ...

Reason: A decree - that originated in Eretz Yisrael - based on the possibility that the Nochrim will institute a decree of Sh'mad (conversion), and it will be forgotten again.

Introduction to Refutation: And in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim, Daf 51b & 52a), where Rav Safra said to Rebbi Aba - 'Someone like myself, who is conversant with the fixing of the calendar, will not perform Melachah (on the second day of Yom-Tov) in town. Am I permitted to do so in the desert?'

Refutation: It is not as Rashi explained, that he was an expert in the Sod ha'Ibur (the calendar) ...

Reason: Since it will be Asur, even if he would be, as Tosfos just explained ...

Authentic Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that he lived in a location where the Sheluchim of Tishri reached ...

Authentic Explanation: (cont.): However he sometimes went in Nisan to a location where the Sheluchim of Nisan reached but not the Sheluchim of Tishri, in which case we decree the location of Nisan on account of the location of Tishri with regard to keeping two days ...

Source: As the Gemara says at the end of the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 21b) - See Tosfos, Pesachim 51b, DH 'K'gon'.

Clarification: This conclusion is not final, since the Gemara later on (at the end of Amud Beis) concludes 'Since for us it does not override (Shabbos), it does not override for them either'.

Clarification (cont.): And the Mishnah which states 'They took their Lulavim to Shul', we establish at the time when the Beis-ha'Mikdash stood, outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Question: Why is it (Lulav) different than Shofar, in connection with which we learned in the fourth Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 29b & 30a) 'When the Yom-Tov of Rosh ha'Shanah fell on Shabbos, they would blow in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, but not outside'?

Answer #1: Lulav is different, in that it is only a matter of Muktzah, in which case, since it is permitted in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, they were not stringent outside ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas blowing the Shofar involves an act of Chochmah, so the Chachamim were more strict.

Question: Why then, were they more lenient by Shofar than by Lulav?

Question (cont.): As we learned there in the Mishnah 'After the destruction of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted that one blows wherever there is a Beis-Din, whilst Lulav is not permitted at all, as the Gemara will shortly conclude?

Answer: Because Shofar carries the memory of Yisrael up to their Father in Heaven, they did not want to cancel it completely ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since they institute it in one Beis-Din, they instituted it in every town that has a Beis-Din ...

Answer (cont.): Even though in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash they blew exclusively in the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Answer #2: Moreover, Lulav rightfully overrides Shabbos outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash more than Shofar ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Since, whereas on Rosh ha'Shanah, the fixing of Rosh Chodesh was known only in Yerushalayim, the first day of Sukos was known also outside.

Clarification: The Tana Darshens from the extra 'Hey', since 'Hey is a Miy'ut (as preclusion) - to teach us that (the D'rashah of) "ba'Yom" is confined to the first day only.

Example #2: In Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, Daf 91a) too, the Gemara Darshens "ha'Yerech" . 'the choice thigh' - to preclude the left one.

Example #3: And likewise, in Pesachim (Daf 58b) it Darshens from "ha'Olah" that 'the Olah (of the Tamid) must come first'.

Implied Question: Whereas sometimes, the 'Hey' comes to include ...

Example #1: As the Gemara says at the end of Perek ha'Yashein (Daf 28b), in connection with adding on to Yom Kipur - "ha'Ezrach", 'to include women' ...

Example #2: And in connection with Sukah - "ha'Ezrach", 'to include Geirim' ...

Answer: All in accordance with the context.

Implied Question: Because it cannot be on account of "Teishvu", 'K'ein Taduru - Just as one resides day and night ... ' ...

Support: Due to which, were it not for the 'Halachah' , we would include women, on the basis of 'Just as husband and wife reside together ... '

Answer: Since is it different here, since the Torah specifically precludes nights, because "Seven days" implies days and not nights ...

(It is unclear what Tosfos is trying to say here. The Tosfos ha'Rosh does not include this in his answer. Perhaps it is a printing error).

Clarification: The Tana does not learn in full from Milu'im, since there it is imposible to sleep in the Chatzer, which was equivalent to the Azarah ...

Clarification (cont.): Since we have a tradition (Sotah, Daf 41b) that 'Sitting in the Azarah is prohibitted, except for the kings of Beis David, whereas here it is forbiddden to sleep outside the Sukah.

Clarification: On Erev Shabbos, and on the following day it is not a Mitzvah that is incumbent upon everybody, only on the Kohanim who went around the Mizbe'ach, as Rashi explains ...

Reason: Since a Yisrael is not permitted to go around the Mizbe'ach, as the Mishnah in the first Perek of Keilim (Mishnah 8) states 'A Yisrael may not enter the space between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach'.

Implied Question: And the reason that Rashi mentions this - that 'the Kohanim went round the Mizbe'ach and not the Yisre'elim, is ...

Answer #1: Because it is evident from the Lashon 'Lulav is handed over to everyone'.

Answer #2: Moreover, what would be gained by the Sheluchei Beis-Din bringing the Lulavim?

Answer #3: Furthermore, why did they not then institute that the Sheluchei Beis-Din bring them (the Lulavim) and let it override Shabbos?

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that the criterion is the fact that 'Kohanim are Zerizim', and it will not lead to the desecration of Shabbos ...

Conclusion (cont.): Lulav, on the other hand, which is handed over to everyone, since it does not override Shabbos for a Yisrael, it does not override it for Kohanim either.

Question: But the Gemara asks why nowadays, it (Aravah) does not override Shabbos, even though nowadays, it is handed over to everybody?

Answer: Rashi answers (with a Dochek) 'Let it override Shabbos' - inasmuch as the Sheluchei Beis-Din take it and bang it.

Clarification: Because, if they saw that the seventh day of Aravah was due to fall on Shabbos, they would declare Ellul or one of the other months a full month.

Support: And so the Yerushalmi says - 'Rebbi Si'mon instructed those who reckoned the calendar 'See to it that neither Rosh ha'Shanah nor the day of Aravah falls on Shabbos ...

Support (cont.): And if you are hard-pressed, then better Rosh-ha'Shanah than the day of Aravah' - implying that he was more concerned about the day of Aravah than he was about Rosh ha'Shanah and Lulav.

The Current Minhag: And nowadays too, we work out that the day of Aravah does not fall on Shabbos, but are not concerned about Rosh ha'Shanah and Lulav.

Question: How can we be concerned about the former, which is merely to commemorate the Beis-ha'Mikdash, and not about the latter, which is d'Oraysa?

Answer #1: On the contrary, it is precisely because they are written explicitly that one will not come to question them; whereas Aravah, which is de'Rabanan, one will.

Answer #2: Moreover, due to the doubt, we keep two days, so if the first day falls on Shabbos, Shofar does not become completely negated, since one then blows on the second day ...

Implied Question: Even though, should witnesses come before Minchah, in Eretz Yisrael, they keep only one day (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

Answer: Nevertheless, in Chutz la'Aretz, they keep two days ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas the seventh day of Aravah, which is only one day - since one cannot take it on the eighth day, which is Yom-Tov, if one were to negate it entirely, the Mitzvah of Aravah would be completely forgotten.

Implied Question: Here, they did not stipulate that 'Whoever receives my Aravah, may keep it as a gift, like the Mishnah states regarding Lulav ...

Answer #1: According to the opinion earlier (Daf 34a) that 'Aravah is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', it is not learned from "Lachem" ...

Introduction to Answer #2: Question: Whereas according to Aba Shaul too, who Darshens from "Arvei", 'one for the Lulav and one for the Beis-ha'Mikdash', from which we see that he does require "Lachem" - by Mikdash just like by Lulav ...

Answer #1: Nevertheless, by Lulav, where everyone brings his own Lulav to the Har ha'Bayis, and the Shamashim receive it from them, they had to stipulate ...

Answer #1: But not by Aravah, where the Sh'luchim of Beis-Din brought them and nobody took possession of his Aravah until the following day - on Shabbos.

Answer #2: Besides, it was the Kohanim who went round the Mizbe'ach, of whom there weren't so many.

Answer #3: And finally, Kohanim are Zerizim (eager - and don't need to be reminded [Shabbos, 20a]).