Explanation #1: Dishes after one has eaten from them must be removed from the Sukah because they are dirty. Rashi.

Explanation #2: Others explain that it refers to pots and kneading bowls ...

Reason: Because one requires 'Ke'ein Taduru', and one tends not to place these in the room where one eats, only in a room of their own.

Support: And so the Behag explained - 'pots, spit-rods, roasting implements and utensils for cooking'.

Clarification: 'The lamp' is not speaking under the same conditions as the others - since 'food utensils outside the Sukah' is speaking where they are not being used, because as long as they are in use, one eats from them in the Sukah.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas a lamp is forbidden as long as it is being used ...

Introduction to Proof: As is evident later, in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (Daf 48a & 48b), where the Mishnah says with regard to the seventh day of Sukos 'When one finishes one's Se'udah, one may not dismantle one's Sukah, in case one wishes to eat another meal, which one must do in the Sukah.

Introduction to Proof (cont.): Only one takes one's Keilim down from the Sukah after Minchah time, in deference to the last day of Yom-Tov, by demonstrating that he is preparing to greet it in the location where he intends to eat his meal.

Introduction to Proof (concl.): And the Gemara there, in reply to the question what a person who does not have an alternative location eo which to transfer his Keilim should do to avoid making it clear that he is not adding an eighth day on to Sukos, the Gemara replies that he should kindle a lamp there ...

Proof: And the fact that it considers it a sign of recognition proves that it is forbidden to kindle it on Sukos.

Reason: Perhaps the reason for this is because the Gemara establishes it by a small Sukah, and the Chachamim are afraid that it might burn down the Sukah.

Proof: And as proof that the prohibition lies in the kindling is the fact that the Tana does not say 'He brings in the lamp, as he says with regard to brining in the eating utensils.

Reason #1: The Gemara ascribes it to the fact that Lulav is compared to Esrog, by which the Torah writes 'Hadar" ...

Refutation of Reason #2: And not like Rashi, who explains that it is because the Torah writes "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" (Sh'mos, 15) ...

Refutation of Reason #2 (cont.): Because "ve'Anveihu" is a Din in Lechatchilah, and is not a reason to declare it Pasul Bedi'eved ...

Source: As is evident in the first Perek (above, on Daf 11b) where the Rabanan maintain that it is a Mitzvah to bind the Lulav, based on the Pasuk "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu"; yet if one fails to bind it, it is Kasher.

Refutation of Reason for Yavesh: one cannot define 'Yavesh' mentioned here in the same way as 'Yavesh' in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 29b), where the Mishnah permits dry grape-pits of Nochrim, and which the Gemara defines as 'after twelve months' ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara says later (on Daf 33a) in connection with 'a dry Hadas' - that if the majority of its leaves have dried up and just three twigs of fresh leaves, it is Kasher ...

Refutation: So we see that 'Yavesh' here is unconnected to the twelve-month period.

Authentic Definition of Yavesh: 'Yavesh' here is therefore equivalent to the Yavshus of the ear of a B'chor - as Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam states in the Mishnah in Perek Al Eilu Mumin (B'choros, Daf 37a) 'It has dried to the extent that it breaks (when it is bent)'.

Clarification: This appears to refer to the two middle leaves that protrude from the top of the spine.

Question: On Daf 32a, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that 'If the twin-leaf is removed, it is Pasul' - with reference to the two middle leaves.

Question (cont.): But surely, if even 'Niktam Rosho' (if the top is clipped off) is Pasul, how much more so 'Nitlu' (if the leaves are completely removed)?

Answer #1: One must therefore say that 'Niktam Rosho' refers to the majority of the top leaves.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi needs to teach us 'Nitlah,

Answer #3: Alternatively, 'Nitlah refers to where only one of the two leaves has been removed, since 'Niktam' is only Pasul if both of them have been clipped off.

Clarification: This speaks with reference to most of the leaves, as stated in the Tosefta (Perek 2).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Nifr'tzu to mean that they (the leaves) broke off from the stem an are only joined to it via binding - implying that they re completely detached from it.

Refutation: But this is not implied in the Gemara (32a), which says 'Nifr'tzu - that it is made into a sort of broom - whereas the leaves that are detached are called 'Hutzin'? ...

Source: As the Gemara quoting Rabah says (on Daf 37b) - 'A man should not cut the Lulav together with the Aravos, because leaves remain, which form a Chatzitzah (an interruption) - i.e. ...

Source (cont.): If it (the Lulav) is much longer than the Aravah an one comes to cut it at the bottom, one should not cut it whilst it is bound, since the leaves of the Lulav, which have become detached from the stem via the cutting, remain.

Source (cont.): And from the leaves one (generally) makes a broom, as the Gemara says in 'ha'Gozel Kama (Bava Kama, Daf 96a) 'Someone who steals a Lulav from his friend, and turns it into Hutzi, acquires it - because before it was a Lulav, and now it is leaves ...

Source (concl.): Hutzi and manufactures a broom, he acquires it - because before it was leaves and now it is a broom'.

Explanation #2: That is by dividing each leaf into two ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since all the leaves of the Lulav are doubled, so he divided them, because that is the way that one makes a broom (which is what he did here - but without first detaching them).

Suggestion #1: It seems, at first, that th Gemara extrapolates this from the fact the Tana makes the statement S'tam and does not differentiate.

Refutation: The Gemara later (on Daf 34b) says 'Nikav ve'Chasar Kol Shehu, Pasul', even though it is Kasher on the second day Yom-Tov? ...

Source: As the Gemara will say later - 'That Rebbi Chanina took a bite from it (the Esrog) and was subsequently Yotzei with it', whilst establishing the Mishnah on the first day of Yom-Tov.

Suggestion #2: If it extrapolates it from the fact that it mentions 'stolen' but not 'borrowed' ...

Refutation: Rav Nachman makes this point later, but it has not occurred to the Gemara at this juncture?

Suggestion #3: And if it is because the Tana mentions 'Gazul' - similar to 'Yaveish' ...

Refutation: It says also next to 'Nikav' - 'Alsah Chazazis (spots) al Rubo' which is Pasul on the second day too, due to 'Hadar' (although a hole is not)?

Refuting the Refutation: The Yerushalmi however, implies slightly that 'Chazazis' is only Pasul on the first day ...

Refuting ... (cont.): When Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachman says in the name of Rebbi Shmuel 'All the Pesulin are only Pasul on the first day. There they explained 'The majority that is on one side' and 'The nose is like the majority' ...

Refuting ... (cont.): And that is equivalent to 'one location' which the Gemara later (on Daf 35b) mentions in connection with 'Chazazis'.

Refuting ... (concl.): In any event, if 'the first day' is exclusive, it must be Hadar, and it is Pasul only because it is considered 'Chaser' - though this is not logical at all!

Answer #1: Rebbi Chanina does not hold of 'Kapasik ve'Tani ... ' ...

Precedent: Like Shmuel in our Sugya - who establishes the Mishnah of 'Gazul' on the first day of Yom-Tov, declaring it Kasher on the second day.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one can only extrapolate from the Reisha of the Mishnah - since it mentions S'tam without differentiating ...

Answer #2 (cont.): But as for all the other cases, since it did not differentiate in the Reisha, it does not differentiate in the Seifa either, mentioning them S'tam, even though in fact, one can differentiate.

Hadar & Lachem: This implies that it is obvious to the Gemara that 'Hadar' is required on all the days, whereas "Lachem" - 'mi'she'Lachem' only applies to the first day ...

Chaser: Likewise "u'Lekachtem", from which we preclude 'Chaser' (lacking) - because one requires a 'Lekichah Tamah', is only Pasul on the first day ...

Source: As the Gemara says later in the Perek (Daf 36b) 'Rebbi Chanina took a bit from it on the second day and was then Yotzei with it'.

Question: What is the basis to difference between them, seeing as they are all written in the same Pasuk "u'Lechachtem lachem ba'Yom ha'Rishon, P'ri Eitz Hadar ... "?

Suggested Answer: And if it is because he understands that "ba'Yom ha'Rishon" refers to those that are written before it, whilst 'Hadar' is written afterwards ...

Question: The Kashya remains that since we Darshen from "u'Lekachtem" - in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 27a) and later in the Perek that 'The four species of the Lulav are all crucial, seeing as 'Lekichah Tamah' is required ...

Question (cont.): And in our Perek (on Daf 41b) and at the beginning of 'Lulav va'Aravah', from the fact that the same word is written in the plural, the Gemara learns 'Every individual must take the Lulav' ...

Question (cont.): Since it does not say "ve'Lakachta" in the singular - in the same way as it Darshens in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 65b) - 'Every individual must count the Omer, since the Torah writes "u'Sefartem" (in the plural) ...

Question (concl.): In that case, on the other days of Sukos, one of the species ought to suffice, and by taking one of them one ought to be Yotzei?

Final Answer: The correct reason is therefore as follows - based on the fact that the first day outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash is d'Oraysa, and the other days are de'Rabanan, to commemorate the Mikdash, as the Gemara will explain later at the beginning of 'Lulav va'Aravah' (Daf 4a) ...

Final Answer (cont.): Consequently, concerning tha actual taking itself - i.e. the four species and that each person must take it, they instituted on all the other days too - akin to the Torah law, and the same applies to 'Hadar', because of Hidur Mitzvah (beautifying the Mitzvah) ...

Final Answer (cont.): But they did not include 'Chaser' and 'Sha'ul' in this Takanah.

Final Answer (concl.): Whereas 'Gazul' in this regard is a Machlokes in the Sugya - Rebbi Yochanan maintains that they included it because of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah', and Shmuel disagrees, because 'Seeing as one can be Yotzei with borrowed one, so too, can one be Yotzei with a stolen one'.