Question: This Tana seems to have switched his opinion - Here, where he ought to have written 'al-Gav', he wrote 'al-Gag' ...

Question (cont.): And in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 13b), in connection with 'the Two Loaves of the Todah', where he should have written 'al-Gag' , he wrote 'al-Gav'?

Answer: In fact, the Tana wrote the same on both occasions, either 'al-Gav' or 'al-Gag' ...

Answer (cont.): Only when it first reached the ears of Rav Yehudah, and he told the Beraisa-expert that he had erred, he thought that the same must be the case with the second one.

Clarification: According to the opinion that the Aravah is taken, it speaks after they had surrounded the Mizbe'ach once.

Reason: Because of Simchah.

Explanation #1: Its Gematriyah is equivaalent to that of "Ana Hash-m" ...

Explanation #2: Moreover, Rashi explains, they belong to the seventy-two Names of Hash-m which are mentioned in the three consecutive Pesukim in Parshas Beshalach - "Vayisa Mal'ach" "Vayavo bein Machaneh" "Vayet Moshe es Yado" ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Each Pasuk comprising seventy-two letters, with the (three-letter) Name of Hash-m coming from the first letter of the first Pasuk, the last letter of the middle Pasuk and the first letter of the last Pasuk, and so in this fashion all along.

Question: We still need to find a reason however, as to why these two Names are singled out more than the others?

Answer; Explanation #3: Because the Medrash in Eichah Rabasi Darshens the Pasuk in Yechezkel (1) "va'*Ani* be'Soch ha'Goleh", and the Pasuk in Yirmiyah " (40) "ve'*Hu* Asur ba'Zikim" - Kevayachol with regard to Hash-m Himself ...

Conclusion: Hence 'Hoshana' means that He should redeem Himself (from Galus).

Explanation #1: The grownups snatch the children's Lulavim from thei hands and eat their Esrogim ...

Implied Question: And this is not considered theft, nor even forbidden on account of Darkei Shalom, Rashi explains ...

Answer: Only this is was what they were accustomed to doing because of Simchah.

Inference: One can extrapolate from here that those youths who riding on horse-back on their way to greet the Chasan wrestle with each other and tear each other's clothes or would his horse, are Patur - since that was their custom based on Simchas Chasan.

Explanation #2: One can also explain that the Mishnah is not talking about the grownups snatching the Lulavim from the children's hands. Rather the word 'Miyad' means that 'immediately the children slipped their own Lulavim from the Aravos ...

Explanation #2 cont.): Since it is long, and they wanted to play with it, whilst their Esrogim they would eat.

Clarification (of explanation #2): According to this, the Gemara's Kashya on the opinion that holds that 'The Esrog is permitted on the seventh day' fits nicely, since it implies that only the children may, but not the grownups.

Clarification (of explanation #1): Rashi however explains with a Dochek that the Gemara is asking 'Specifically the Esrogim belonging to children, which are not designated for a real Mitzvah, but those of grownups, which are, are forbidden all day?

Question: But if so, the Gemara ought to have said 'Of children (with a 'Daled'), yes, of grownups, no!'

Clarifying Text: We do not have the text 'and it went in an Amah' ...

Reason: Since the K'ranos (the corner-blocks) were not withdrawn (from the edge) at all ...

Reason (cont.): Only they brought a frame one Amah by one Amah and one Amah high, which they placed on each corner, and filled with smooth stones, lime, pitch and plaster (Rashi).

Proof: And it is indeed evident in Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Zevachim, Daf 54a) and in Perek Sh'tei ha'Lechem (Menachos, Daf 97b) that the K'ranos were not wthdrawn inwards at all.

Reinstating Text: Yet Rashi erases the text in the Sefarim, all of which stated 'It went up three Amos and went in an Amah, and this was the location of the K'ranos' ...

Explanation: In other words, it was on that withdrawn section that the Kranos were built.

Conclusion): In that case, it is similar to the other cases - 'It went up one Amah ... ' - 'This is the location of the K'ranos' means that the location of the withdrawn section was where the K'ranos were placed.

Source: This Pasuk is written at the end of Yechezkel (chapter 48) in connection with the measurements of Yerushalayim of the future - the circumference of which is eighteen thousand canes ...

Source (cont.): In which case it measures four thousand five hundred canes lengthwise times four thousand five hundred canes breadth wise - a cane measuring six Amos.

Refuted Text: In the text that appears in the Sefarim ''eighteen thousand Parsi", the word 'Parsi' must be omitted ...

Reason: Since it does appear in the Pasuk ...

Authentic Text: But the correct text reads 'Eighteen thousand is the row that is in front of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu' - which is the circumference of the canes that is formed from the square of four thousand five hundred canes lengthwise times four thousand five hundred canes breadth wise ...

Source: As is written in the Pasuk in Yechezkel (chapter 48) - "And these are the exits of the city: on the north side a measure of five hundred four and thousand" ...

Source (cont.): And it is written (Ibid.) "And on the west side a measure of five hundred four and thousand" (See Rashash); and it is written (Ibid.) "And on the south side a measure of five hundred four and thousand"; And it is written (Ibid.) "And on the east side a measure of five hundred four and thousand" ...

Source (concl.): And then it writes "The circumference is eighteen thousand".

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk is speaking about Yerushalayim ...

Answer: We Darshen it in connection with the row that is in front of Kudsha B'rich Hu ...

Reason: Since the Pasuk concludes "And the name of the city from that day on will be 'Hashem is there' ".

Refuted Explanation: It is not correct to say that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah only argues on the seventh day ...

Correct Explanation: But he argues on all the other dqays too - and he holds that they brought palm-branches all seven days and not Aravos ...

Support #1: Just like Aba Shaul (above on Daf 30a), who Darshens "Arvei", one for the Mikdash - all seven days.

Support #2: And like the Rabanan, who learn (Ibid.) from the Halachah (le'Moshe mi'Sinai) - all seven days.

Correct Explanation (cont.): And Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah Darshens with regard to the Aravos like the other Tana'im in Lulav ha'Gazul, and he does not hold of the Halachah.

Implied Question: And when the Beraisa says 'on that day' ...

Answer: It is La'av Davka.

Explanation (cont.): According to Rebbi Levi however, who presents Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's reason, not from a Pasuk, but from a S'vara - 'Like a date-palm' ... , which is a good Si'man in praise of Yisrael ...

Explanation (cont.): It may even be one day only ...

Explanation (cont.): In any event, whether it is one day or all seven, the Aravah is not negated ...

Explanation (concl.): Since they took both, willow- boughs and palm-branches.

Sukah & Lulav: Sukah and Lulav are not the same with regard to B'rachah ...

Lulav: Since over Lulav one recites a B'rachah only once a day ...

Sukah: Whilst Sukah the Mitzvah applies whenever one enters it in order eat and drink or to sleep, even if it is ten times a day, one recites a B'rachah on each occasion ...

Tefilin: Similar to Tefilin, over which one recites a B'rachah each time one puts them on.

Reason for Sukah: And that is the reason by Sukah, since if he wants to eat a Se'udah, he cannot eat it outside the Sukah, in spite of having already eaten that day in the Sukah.

Reason for Tefilin: Likewise the Mitzvah of Tefilin is to wear them on one's head and on one's arm all day.

Reason for Lulav: Whereas the basic Mitzvah of Lulav is only once a day, as we learnt above (Daf 42a).