Question #1: Now that the Torah writes "be'Chag ha'Succos", why does it need to write "be'Mo'ed"?

Question #2: Moreover, let the Torah only write "mi'Keitz Sheva Shanim Sh'nas ha'Shemitah be'Vo Kol Yisrael Lera'os", and we will know that it cannot refer to Rosh ha'Shanah, seeing as on Rosh ha'Shanah, one does not come to be seen?

Answer: The Torah needs to write be'Chag ha'Succos", since we would otherwise have thought that it pertains to Chag ha'Matzos.

Question #2: "The question remains however, why the Torah needs to insert "be'Mo'ed"?

Answer: The reason for this is because "be'Vo Kol Yisrael Lera'os" implies from the beginning of Yom-Tov (on the first day). Therefore the Torah writes "be'Mo'ed" which implies the middle of Yom-Tov; and adds "be'Vo Kol Yisrael", which implies from the beginning of Yom-Tov, and not on the second or third day, but on Motza'ei Yom-Tov ha'Rishon.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi's explanation however, poses a Kashya, in that he attributes the reason as to why it cannot be on the first day, to the fact that the construction of the Bimah does not override Yom-Tov ...

Refutation: But since it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv to read it at the beginning of Yom-Tov, let them read it without a Bimah? Who says that the Bimah is crucial?

Conclusion: Consequently, the above explanation is the correct one.

Halachah: They probably constructed the Bimah out of Pieces on Erev Yom-Tov, in which case, on Chol ha'Mo'ed they did not construct anything, but merely put the pieces together.

Reason:: Had they not done so, it would seem that its construction would even have overridden Chol ha'Mo'ed.

Precedent: The Gemara gives the same answer in Perek Kohen Gadol in Sanhedrin, Daf 19:) where the Tana Kama in the Mishnah forbids a king to perform either Chalitzah or Yibum, whereas Rebbi Yehudah rules that if he wishes to do so, 'he will be remembered for the good'.

Precedent (cont.): There too, the Gemara queries Rebbi Yehudah's ruling from Rav Ashi's statement, and there too, it replies 'Mitzvah Sha'ani'.

Question #1: Why, asks the Ri, does the Gemara not give the same answer in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 17.), where after issuing the ruling that requires the removal of a corpse before a bride, and the removal of both before a king ...

Question #1 (cont.): It goes on to record how King Agrippas gave a bride precedence over himself, and how the Chachamim praised him. And when the Gemara queries this from Rav Ashi, it answers that he turned away at a cross-roads. Why did the Gemara not answer there too, that 'A Mitzvah is different'?

Question #2: Also strange is the fact that the case of Rav Ashi himself speaks where there is a Mitzvah, since initially he said that 'Even the opinion that permits a Rav to forego his Kavod, forbids a Nasi to do so'.

Question #2 (cont.): Then, after the Gemara queries him from the episode with Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok who were sitting at the wedding-Se'udah of the son of Raban Gamliel, whilst Raban Gamliel was standing and serving drinks ...

Question #2 (cont.): The Gemara re-phrases Rav Ashi's statement to read that 'Even the opinion that permits a Nasi (i.e. Raban Gamliel) to forego his Kavod, forbids a king to do so ...

Question #2 (cont.): Implying even where there is a Mitzvah - similar to the Nasi ...

Support: Like the case of Raban Gamliel who was sitting at a Se'udas Mitzvah and who forewent his own Kavod on account of that of the Chachamim, his guests who were sitting at his Se'udah ...

Support (cont.): On which the Gemara cites the Pasuk written in connection with Avraham Avinu "And he stood over them ... ".

Support (concl.): So we see that even where there is a Mitzvah Rav Ashi says that 'He may not forego his Kavod'.

Answer: One can only that 'a Mitzvah is different' in our case, where he is Mochel his Kavod on account of Kavod ha'Torah, which is equivalent to Kavod ha'Shechinah.

Answer (cont.): And similarly the case ןמ Perek Kohen Gadol (Sanhedrin, Daf 19:) where the Gemara rules 'Choletz or Meyabem', he may be Mochel his Kavod in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of the King of Kings, demonstrating that the awe of the Shechinah is upon him.

Answer (cont.): But in Kesuvos (Daf 17.) and in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 32:), where he is Mochel his Kavod in order to give Kavod to a human-being, such as a Kalah or a Talmid-Chacham, in such a case it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that he may not be Mochel even where there is a Mitzvah ...

Answer (cont.): Because the Mitzvah of Kibud itself that one needs to give to the King of Kavod is greater than the Mitzvah of Kibud that the king has to do to honor them ...

Source: Seeing as the Torah writes about them "Place over you a king" - that his awe should be upon you, and not vice-versa.

Conclusion: It transpires that the when the king honors someone it is not a Mitzvah.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Chanina b'Rebbi Gamliel says that many people died on the day that they flattered King Agrippas.

Question: It is very strange however, to say that they should be Chayav such a harsh punishment if, min ha'Torah, he was fit to be king since his mother was from Yisrael?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that even though the Gemara says in Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos, Daf 102.) and in Perek ha'Choletz (Ibid. Daf 45:) in connection with Rav Mari, whom Rava appointed an officer in Bavel, and the host of Rav Ada bar Ahavah - that if his mother is from Yisrael, it is considered "mi'Kerev Achecha" (Kidushin, Daf 76:).

Answer (cont.): That exclusively with regard to a prominent position and leadership, to becoming officers in town, where we Darshen "Som Tasim alecha Melech mi'Kerev Achecha".

Source: Because, since the Pasuk juxtaposes 'Mesimos to "mi'Kerev Achecha", it indicates that they require "mi'Kerev Achecha", at least a little (i.e. that their mother should be from Yisrael).

Source (cont.): But when it comes to the king, the Torah repeats "mi'Kerev Achecha Tasim alecha Melech", implying that a king must be completely 'mi'Kerev achecha", both from his father and from his mother.

Conclusion: So the Chanufah lay in the fact that he ruled by force not in accordance with the Din Torah, and that they agreed with him and encouraged him in the matter.

Conclusion: Granted, they were unable to stop him, they should however, have rather remained silent and not supported him. And this is the punishment for flattering someone sinfully ...

Reason: Where one flatters one's friend out of fear, and unconcerned about the Fear of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, he makes out that the Eye above does not see.

Yerushalmi: In 'Asarah Yuchsin', the Gemara says 'That one does not examine (a person's Yichus) beyond the Mizbe'ach, since the Torah writes "Som Tasim alecha Melech". That applies to a king; from where do we know that it extends to communal officers, Gaba'ei Tzedakah and the Sofrim of the Dayanim? Therefore the Torah adds "mi'Kerev Achecha Tasim alecha Melech".

Yerushalmi (cont.): Whoever one appoints to a position of importance must be from the cream of your brothers!'.

Clarification: This speaks in a case where there is no life-danger, but where there is, it is permitted ...

Source: Such as in the case cited in Perek Arba'ah Nedarim (Daf 22.) where, Ula, on the way to Eretz Yisrael, was accompanied by two residents of Mechuza. And when, after slaughtering his friend, one of them asked Ula whether he had done well, the latter replied that he had, and that he should remember to cut open his throat.

Source (cont.): When Ula came before Rebbi Yochanan, he asked him whether perhaps he had encouraged sinners to sin, to which the latter replied that 'he had saved his own life'.