Current Text: The Beraisa specifically mentions 'for himself', because, according to this Tana one does not recite anything over somebody else's Sukah ...

Reason: Since he holds that one does not recite 'La'asos', as the Gemara in Perek ha'Techeles (Menachos, Daf 42a & 42b) extrapolates.

Text (Yerushalmi): There is a Tana however, cited in the Yerushalmi (Perek ha'Ro'eh, Halachah 3) which rules that if one makes it for oneself, one recites 'La'asos Sukah'; for someone else, 'La'asos Sukah Li'shemo (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Question #1: One needs to find a reason why it is that over some Mitzvos they instituted 'Shehechiyanu', and over other Mitzvos, not ...

Question #2: Over making/ preparing one's Sukah and Lulav, they did institute it, as we see here, whereas over making Tzitzis and Tefilin, they did not? ...

Source: As is evident in Perek ha'Techeiles (Ibid.), where Rebbi Yochanan states the respective B'rachos that one recites over the Tefilin shel Yad and the Tefilin shel Rosh, implying that one does not recite 'La'asos Tefilin', seeing as he does not mention it ...

Source cont.): And by the same token, one can deduce that Shehechiyanu too, one does recite, since he does not mention it either.

Question #3: Similarly, one recites 'Shehechiyanu' over Pidyon ha'Ben, as the Gemara states at the end of 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 121b) ...

Question #3 (cont.): Whereas over Milah, one does not recite it, seeing as the Gemara in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos Ibid.) and at the end of 'Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah' does not mention it ...

Question #4: Likewise one recites 'Shehechiyanu' over reading the Megilah, as the Gemara states at the beginning of 'ha'Korei es ha'Megilah Omeid' ) Megilah, Daf 21b), whereas over the recital of Hallel, one does not?

Answer: Apparently, they instituted 'Shehechiyanu' over a Mitzvah that involves Simchah.

Halachah: And regarding the Gemara in 'ha'Ro'eh' (B'rachos, Daf 54a) says that makes a B'rachah over new clothes, Rav Sherira Ga'on rules that we do not rely on it ...

Reason: Based on the conclusion of the Sugya in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 40b) - that one requires something that is occurs from time to time.

Question: The Kashya then remains from Pidyon ha'Ben (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Inference: Since the Tana does not say that he recites two B'rachos, as the Seifa does, in connection with a Sukah that is fully built and there is no room to improve it ...

Halachah: It implies that he is Yotzei (with 'Shehechiyanu' with the B'rachah that he recited when he built it.

Question: Why does he not recite it because it is Yom-Tov, like one recites it on the Yom-Tov of Pesach, Shavu'os and on other Yamim-Tovim?

Answer: It may well be that, since the Sukah is built on account of the Chag, it is a S'vara that the 'Shehechiyanu' that one recited, even though it was recited on a weekday, covers the Yom-Tov, too ...

Answer (cont.): Because the 'Shehechiynu' that comes on account of Yom-Tov, is valid even if it is recited not on the actual Yom-Tov ...

Source: As the Gemara says later (on Daf 47b) - that if one did not recite it today, one can recite it tomorrow or on another day.

Reason: Since it is a Mitzvah to touch them, in order not to take one's mind off them.

Source: Since in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 7b) the Gemara learns from the Tzitz that, 'If the Tzitz, which only contains one Name of Hash-m ... ' ...

Dilemma: It is not however, clear which B'raachah one recites; whether it is 'Lish'mo es Chukav', which one recites after the conclusion of one's Tefilah ...

Dilemma (cont.): Or 'Lehani'ach' which one recites when putting them on, as the Gemara states in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 37a & 37b) ...

Resolution: However, since here he is already wearing them, it is logical to say that one recites 'Lishmor Chukav', as one does at the conclusion of one's Tefilah, as the Gemara states in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah, Daf 51b)

Implied Question: By other Mitzvos such as on Lulav and Sukah, they did not institute a B'rachah for someone who sees, only by Ner Chanukah ...

Answer #1: On account of the love of the miracle ...

Answer #2: And also on account of the fact that there are many people who do not have homes, and who cannot therefore fulfill the Mitzvah (note this also answer the Kashya on Lulav and Sukah).

Opting for Answer #1: The first reason however, is more correct ...

Reason: In order to avoid a Kashya on Mezuzah.

Reinstating Answer #2: One can also explain that it is not logical to institute for someone who merely sees a B'rachah that the person who performs the Mitzvah himself does not recite.

Clarification: Even after he has been Yotzei, as the Gemara explains - since 'It has been designated for the whole day' ...

Clarification (cont.): And even according to Resh Lakish who permits it on the seventh day, that is only after he has been Yotzei ...

Reason: As the Gemara says 'It has been designated for its Mitzvah'.

Question: Like whom does Rebbi Chanina hold, when in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (above, Daf 36b) the Gemara relates how he first ate some of it and was then Yotzei with it, which is neither like Rebbi Yochanan nor Resh Lakish?

Answer: Since he did not eat all of it, but left over sufficient with which to be Yotzei, it is permitted even according to Rebbi Yochanan.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that Mah Nafshach it is entirely forbidden on the first day, when it is Pasul even if only a minimal amount is missing.

Answer: Perhaps Rebbi Chanina designated all of it for the first day and some of it for the remaining days ...

Precedent: Similar to the case of 'Seven Esrogim for seven days', cited later in the Sugya.

Implied Question: And even though a T'nai is effective by Sukah ...

Implied Question (cont.): That is only if he says 'I do not separate from them the entire Bein ha'Shemashos', as the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Meivi Kadei Yayin (Beitzah, Daf 30b) ...

Implied Question (concl.): And in the current case, Mah Nafshach he separates from all of them ...

Answer: The Gemara explains there that 'Esrog, by which the nights separate the days, each day is independent, whilst Sukah, where they do not, it is considered as if it is one long day ...

Answer (cont.): And Rebbi Chanina stipulated all of it on the first day, and on the other days, he did not separate from it on their respective Bein ha'Shamashoses.

Introduction to Question: Earlier, in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Daf 38a) in connection with 'Somone who arrives from a journey and who has no Lulav, the Mishnah rules that 'When he arrives home he should take it at his table' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): The Gemara implies that he must break his meal on account of the Lulav - how much more is he not permitted to begin eating ...

Question: So how could Rebbi Chanina eat from the Esrog first?

Answer: We are therefore forced to explain that what it means is that he ate from it today and was Yotzei with it on the following day.

Reference: Tosfos already explained it in the Mishnah.

Implied Question: Even though an Esrog too, is Muktzah during Bein ha'Shamashos since it is Safek Yom ...

Answer: This is not a Kashya at all, as Tosfos pointed out in the first Perek (Daf 10b, DH 'Ad').

Question: Why do we need the reason of 'I Isramei leih Se'udasa', why is it not Asur anyway due to the Isur of S'tiras Ohel (demolishing)?

Answer #1: One needs to forbid it on the eighth day even where it fell down on Chol ha'Mo'ed, since it was designated for seven days, including Bein ha'Shemashos, since he would eat there if it was standing

Answer #1 (cont.): And it is all considered like one day, as Tosfos explained earlier - seeing as the nights do not divide the days.

Answer #2: Alternatively, with regard to the Sukah decorations, which are not subject to S'tiras Ohel.

Reason: Since he (Levi) decrees Esrog because of Sukah, as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 10b, DH 'Ad Motza'ei').

Implied Question: It is not comparable to 'bar Shatya', in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 31a), where the Gemara rules that 'He both purchased it and sold it when he was a Shoteh ...

Answer: Since a Shoteh, who is worse, can neither purchase or sell.

The Eighth Day: They did not decree on acount of Sukah in Bavel in Eretz Yisrael, since there is no Safek ...

The Eighth Day (cont.): Whereas in Bavel, where there is, they did, even though one does not recite a B'rachah.

The Ninth Day: On the ninth day Safek eighth day however, they did not decree Esrog on account of Sukah (in Bavel either).